[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by dhanushmenon

Lot of information being discussed here. Whilst everyone has the right to their opinion, I would request members to abstain from discussing capabilities and limitations of the Defence apparatus. Also, kindly refrain from posting images of warships, aircraft etc which are not available in open source internet.

If commissioning of a ship is published in news, it is a welcome snippet to add. However, a ship sailing out of harbour, be it for trials or stretching legs or to wash its underpants, should not be posted here. I am not sure whether Spy shot images of warships would be treated with the same enthusiasm by the government as we treat spy shot images of upcoming cars. It has the word "spy" in it for a reason; and in this case, it will be serious.

Each to its own, but this is a public forum. And as such I don’t see any problem in discussing it. The military capabilities of just about all the world forces are discussed, in detail, by enthusiast all over the world, all over the internet.

I don’t see any difference for India, or for any nation for that matter. Unless there are legal reason it can not be done, everything in the public domain is open for discussion.

It is your tax dollar / rupees at work. If the military needs to keep something a secret, they should take pre-cautions. Not the general public, not in a democracy.

Jeroen

[ads11]

I'm with Jeroen on this one I'm afraid. If little old me was able to feast my eyes on the image with all the effort it takes to just scroll through Reddit or Twitter, then you can be sure that it's not really that much of a secret anymore. If it's really that hush hush and I'm not doubting there are things you'd want to keep that way, then I wouldn't have been able to get that image in the first place.

Also as a civilian if I'm not able to know about the pros and cons of a particular piece of kit that the govt has acquired in my name, let alone discuss it, I think you'll end up with with a worrying precedent. You won't exactly be able to question the efficacy of said piece of kit should it turn out to be a dud.

Like Jeroen correctly pointed out, the onus should be on the govt to ensure secrecy. Not on us. There are plenty of photos the world over of advanced warships out of harbour or dry dock, going for their trials - I just think it's being a bit overzealous denying it's out there. That's the thing with the internet, it never forgets, so really frankly speaking I don't think removing my post will undo anything but oh well, if the mods feel that way and I'd be curious to know if anyone from naval brass really kicked up a stink over this, then I'll rein my oar in on this one.

[dhanushmenon]

Originally Posted by ads11

I'm with Jeroen on this one I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Each to its own
Jeroen

Like Jeroen very rightly brought out, "To each, his own...". Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Peace out and have a great weekend. Cheers.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by dhanushmenon

Lot of information being discussed here. Whilst everyone has the right to their opinion, I would request members to abstain from discussing capabilities and limitations of the Defence apparatus. Also, kindly refrain from posting images of warships, aircraft etc which are not available in open source internet.

If commissioning of a ship is published in news, it is a welcome snippet to add. However, a ship sailing out of harbour, be it for trials or stretching legs or to wash its underpants, should not be posted here.

This view has been posted from time to time by others on this forum. But when by a person as distinguished as you, I'm forced to put my (not distinguished) view on record - disagree strongly. (Would temper my views if in an actual war.)

Not getting into a debate about it, unless you really want to.

Sutripta

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dhanushmenon

Lot of information being discussed here. Whilst everyone has the right to their opinion,....... I would request members to abstain from discussing capabilities and limitations of the Defence apparatus. Also, kindly refrain from posting images of warships, aircraft etc which are not available in open source internet.

If commissioning of a ship is published in news, it is a welcome snippet to add. However, a ship sailing out of harbour, be it for trials or stretching legs or to wash its underpants, should not be posted here. I am not sure whether Spy shot images of warships would be treated with the same enthusiasm by the government as we treat spy shot images of upcoming cars. It has the word "spy" in it for a reason; and in this case, it will be serious.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Each to its own, but this is a public forum. And as such I don’t see any problem in discussing it.

Originally Posted by ads11

I'm with Jeroen on this one I'm afraid. If little old me was able to feast my eyes on the image with all the effort it takes to just scroll through Reddit or Twitter....... then I'll rein my oar in on this one.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

This view has been posted from time to time by others on this forum. - disagree strongly. (Would temper my views if in an actual war.)

Being an Indian, I can't resist an argument. If there is are 3 Indians and a Dutchman in the fray then we must have at least 7 opinions. This is a tricky area. No easy answers. One way is - this is in the public domain. Another is that every Ivan or Hong Choo is posting in the public domain so today we have a lot of contaminated information on the web and not all of it is in the interests of the Armed Forces of a nation. On Naval matters I know only what I read and sometimes nuggets of history learnt from my father. On aviation I am compelled to be much more circumspect that on certain discussions my professional knowledge does not creep in. I do so by either rechecking that what I'm writing is on the net at a respectable site or I refrain from getting into the discussion. The most sensitive area is performance of electronic equipment. It is an area I consciously stay away from. Just the thoughts of one man in late middle age.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Just the thoughts of one man in late middle age.

Wrong premise for argument.
Your choice (for very compelling reasons. I too would if in your place). vs trying to impose your choice on others.

Sutripta

[Gansan]

Whatever is in public domain can't be very sensitive. More of an open secret. There will be undisclosed details for all major weaponry. The devil will be in the details.

For example, can we take the maximum operational depth of various submarines we find in public domain at face value?

Just because I am a tax payer, not every information needs to be be disclosed to me.

[Jeroen]

Over the course of a couple a decades and several continents, professionally, I was required to sign various “national secrecy acts”, have my family, my friends, my employer vetted prior to getting various national security clearances. All part of the job, as they say!

I have yet to meet a professional involved in “security” that would be bothered about the public taking images on anything, or discussing anything on line. In fact, they take that as the default position. If it can be seen / observed it is going to end up on the internet, no matter what! So don’t even bother trying to influence the public, Joe average!

Any (military) leader thinking, or worse, advocating, that the general public should refrain from posting / discussion certain things on line is just grossly incompetent.

This is the reality we live in. It can not be avoided. My personal opinion is as stated before; if the government/military or anybody wants to keep a secret, it is their responsibility to do so, without putting limitations on the general public.

The truth is: real secrets are always disclosed from within those who are in the know. Seeing a navy vessel leaving port is no big thing at all. Knowing where it is going might be. Knowing what its commander has been been told on its mission is the real thing. That is learned from somebody with insight/knowlegde. Not from some punter standing on a pier taking an image of a frigate going to sea.

I have been involved in debating/discussing security arrangements on intercepting phone calls and data calls. Again, it is not about what is shared on Facebook, what apps or even the dark web.

The number of disclosed taps, or the technical ability on what can be tapped, is directly proportionate to the number of people involved in putting the phone/data tap on in the first place. It is about the people in the know, not the general public.

Security leaks are always inside out, the rest is just public domain, gossip, clever guessing and a bit of average intelligence extrapoling some antenna’s or other bits and pieces in the image .

Jeroen

[bimal_67]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

...... anybody wants to keep a secret, it is their responsibility to do so,...

.......real secrets are always disclosed from within those who are in the know....


.......the rest is just public domain, gossip, clever guessing and a bit of average intelligence extrapoling some antenna’s or other bits and pieces in the image .

I fully agree with the quoted part above.

In this age of easy access to internet and reach of social media, multiple pieces of information are bound to be available in the public domain. One can find divergent conclusions and inferences being drawn out, often from the same piece of information.

Some of the items / articles in the public domain are put out with vested interests, propaganda etc, while few are from genuine sources.
Speculative analyses based on unverified info also find many takers without any effort for confirmatory checks for authenticity. It takes considerable effort to filter out the matter from the chaff info available all around.

All these are absolutely normal and are to be expected.

In the case of military aircraft / warships/ defence equipment, till someone who can confirm the correctness of any NEWS / info in the public domain, it is just NEWS and not authentic info. That is my view.

[ads11]

Source

Came across this rather excellent little summary someone put together on Reddit today and felt compelled to share - it's nice not only to see how UK carriers came to evolve over time, but considering IN carrier ops share such a strong heritage with them, I imagine it'll be nice to know here.

What I found particularly intriguing is CVA-01, the cancelled supercarrier the Brits had hoped to build in the 60s before financial issues took their toll. If you read the caption and look at the plan view, you'll notice the island superstructure is rather inboard from the starboard (right side) edge. This is much like INS Vikramaditya. Now on the latter it's always bothered me a bit that the island superstructure is so far inboard because it feels like it's eating into valuable deck space. I mean what will they use that alleyway/passage for on the outside. Well going by the caption above it seems the Brits planned on having something called an "Alaskan Highway" to use that starboard space for deck movement away from the flight line. Now this is the first I've come across this term and the first time I've really thought about that space being used that way.

So I'm curious if some of the members have an inkling about this? V.Narayan? Any thoughts? I wonder then if the IN Does indeed use that space because it really just seems a bit wasteful otherwise.. I've suspected that the reason Vikramaditya is that way is because of its original design and sure, moving the whole superstructure would've been bordering on folly and completely undermined the premise of its purchase. Planned premise that is. In the new carrier though it seems the superstructures are more conventionally placed far out to the edge as possible.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

If you read the caption and look at the plan view, you'll notice the island superstructure is rather inboard from the starboard (right side) edge. This is much like INS Vikramaditya. Now on the latter it's always bothered me a bit that the island superstructure is so far inboard because it feels like it's eating into valuable deck space. I mean what will they use that alleyway/passage for on the outside. Well going by the caption above it seems the Brits planned on having something called an "Alaskan Highway" to use that starboard space for deck movement away from the flight line. Now this is the first I've come across this term and the first time I've really thought about that space being used that way.

Yes CVA-01, now of interests to only buffs like you and me did have this taxiway to the starboard for moving aircraft along. See diagramme pasted below. It was of a width adequate for the Backburn Buccaneer with wings folded. A useful common sense idea. A good one for a large carrier that can afford this in addition to a fully spaced out main deck. More on this later. The CVA-01 was to have had two islands just like the new QE does. While two independent control tower + bridge combination was retained the in-between area was covered up for deck vehicles and the deck above converted to operations rooms for various purposes.

I wonder then if the IN Does indeed use that space because it really just seems a bit wasteful otherwise. Planned premise that is. In the new carrier though it seems the superstructures are more conventionally placed far out to the edge as possible.

On INS Vikramaditya, my educated guess is, we might be using it for movement of deck vehicles so that they don't clutter the main deck with their movements when flight operations are on. With regard to Vikrant II a 40,000 tonne size is not enough to fit large enough sponsons, like the 100,000 tonne USN carriers, that can accommodate a full width main deck and enough beam for an island, gas turbine uptakes and downtakes and a Alaskan highway. To accommodate such large sponsons -(a) your displacement should be well north of 60,000 tonnes; and (b) the height of your main deck needs to be much more, around 15 metres above the sea surface, so that in a heavy seaway those massive sponsons are not being slapped by waves that then affect ship stability, speed and stress to the structure. So with a 40,000 tonne ship the best is to have the largest possible contiguous main deck. So why is Vikrant II only 40,000 tonnes -- it is limited by the power available of the only large reliable gas turbine the LM2500 , four of which I believe generate around 100,000 shp. So it is the largest displacement which this out put can propel to 30+knots. Fitting six of these is a gearing nightmare plus occupies way too much space for the uptakes and down takes. Hope this helps.

Carrier aviation buffs forever :-)

Sometimes I wonder if I should compile a treatsie on the history of IN's carrier aviation by pulling together bits and pieces I've written in the past. Too many of our young Naval officers may have no idea.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Yes CVA-01, now of interests to only buffs like you and me did have this taxiway to the starboard for moving aircraft along. See diagramme pasted below. It was of a width adequate for the Backburn Buccaneer with wings folded. A useful common sense idea. A good one for a large carrier that can afford this in addition to a fully spaced out main deck. More on this later. The CVA-01 was to have had two islands just like the new QE does. While two independent control tower + bridge combination was retained the in-between area was covered up for deck vehicles and the deck above converted to operations rooms for various purposes.

This was great, thanks a ton! While I figured the space would be used to move the deck vehicles about, I didn't imagine they'd plan on moving Bucs along that corridor. Pretty zany idea IMO. I find it interesting that the Brits had their twin island plans worked up all the way back during the time of the CVA-01. I thought it was a relatively recent design choice with the QE plans but considering how innovative the Brits have often been with carrier ops it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the RN had this in the pipeline way back when. I keep looking at that schematic you posted and marvelling at the way they've managed to scatter landing spots for helicopters all over the shop - would've really given deck bosses a chance to earn their money.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

On INS Vikramaditya, my educated guess is, we might be using it for movement of deck vehicles so that they don't clutter the main deck with their movements when flight operations are on. With regard to Vikrant II a 40,000 tonne size is not enough to fit large enough sponsons, like the 100,000 tonne USN carriers, that can accommodate a full width main deck and enough beam for an island, gas turbine uptakes and downtakes and a Alaskan highway. To accommodate such large sponsons -(a) your displacement should be well north of 60,000 tonnes; and (b) the height of your main deck needs to be much more, around 15 metres above the sea surface, so that in a heavy seaway those massive sponsons are not being slapped by waves that then affect ship stability, speed and stress to the structure. So with a 40,000 tonne ship the best is to have the largest possible contiguous main deck. So why is Vikrant II only 40,000 tonnes -- it is limited by the power available of the only large reliable gas turbine the LM2500 , four of which I believe generate around 100,000 shp. So it is the largest displacement which this out put can propel to 30+knots. Fitting six of these is a gearing nightmare plus occupies way too much space for the uptakes and down takes. Hope this helps.

I loved reading this - I think you're at your best tying together ship building concepts. I don't think I appreciated how the design decisions on the Vikrant 2 linked the available turbines and turbine set up to it's displacement, deck height, sponsons and overall set up.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Carrier aviation buffs forever :-)

Sometimes I wonder if I should compile a treatsie on the history of IN's carrier aviation by pulling together bits and pieces I've written in the past. Too many of our young Naval officers may have no idea.

Oh I know I speak not just for myself, but most folks on here: Do it! Always look forward to a big old V.Narayan special!

As carrier buffs CVA-01 is definitely up there as a mythical beast much the same way Elmo's sea control ships are and the mystical Soviet Shtorm class that never came to be. Gives us ample fodder to muse over.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

Oh I know I speak not just for myself, but most folks on here: Do it! Always look forward to a big old V.Narayan special!

As carrier buffs CVA-01 is definitely up there as a mythical beast much the same way Elmo's sea control ships are and the mystical Soviet Shtorm class that never came to be. Gives us ample fodder to muse over.

The sleepy old bull in me doesn't need much goading. One of these weekends I will.

Maybe because it is the smallest arm the IN has to fight hardest for its share of budget. As a consequence it has always, right from the late 1940s, been the most forward in strategic thinking of the three arms and then into converting strategy to an implementable doctrine and then further down to tactics.

Of all the nations that dipped their toes into carrier aviation in the period after WW-2 only India & Spain have been able to take it forward to a logical conclusion and hold their own. Italy joined the club later and has done very well for itself going logically up the chain from aft deck helicopter cruisers to through deck Harrier Carriers to the Cavour. But Australia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Netherlands all decided for different reasons that fast combat aircraft carrier aviation was either not for them or desirable but not affordable. I would love to study Zumwalt's Sea control Ship design. People who argue between carrier aviation versus submarines don't know the port from starboard of naval warfare and sea dominance. It's like asking can you live without your left leg or your right one.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Of all the nations that dipped their toes into carrier aviation in the period after WW-2 only India & Spain have been able to take it forward to a logical conclusion and hold their own. Italy joined the club later and has done very well for itself going logically up the chain from aft deck helicopter cruisers to through deck Harrier Carriers to the Cavour. But Australia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Netherlands all decided for different reasons that fast combat aircraft carrier aviation was either not for them or desirable but not affordable. I would love to study Zumwalt's Sea control Ship design. People who argue between carrier aviation versus submarines don't know the port from starboard of naval warfare and sea dominance. It's like asking can you live without your left leg or your right one.

From what I've read the erstwhile small carriers the RN ended up with after CVA-01 was cancelled are the practical implementation of Admiral Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship concept. I feel that because of the prevalence of the US supercarriers there's this assumption that to play the game you have to go all the way towards the high end. But that's becoming fiscally challenging even for the USN - so what chance do the others stand (besides the PLAN for whom it might be seen almost as a measuring contest). I think carriers Can make sense as long as the planning behind them makes it fit the practicable force structure. Too small a carrier doesn't make sense for the capital outlay - you'd be better off with a LHD. I suppose the 40000 ton displacement seems to be the practicable sweet spot for the IN. Besides like you said, it's not a zero sum game of subs vs carriers, that's foolish. I think ultimately the IN's thinking does seem to be driven by the need to make the most of the money by the time the sister services have had their share. Besides looking globally thanks to the F-35B you'll absolutely see a revival of smaller (vs Nimitzes or Fords) carriers especially with the USN's own America class giving the USMC their own carrier fleet that's still greater than the sum total of the rest of the world; the JMSDF and their Izumo's; the RoKN with their purported design; PLAN's type 3 carriers; the QE class and whatever future iteration the French take for theirs. Quite a resurgence if you think about it

[dragracer567]

Indian Navy inducts two Sea guardian (Predator B) on lease. The two drones, flying with Indian Navy logo, are under the full operational control of the force and it will have exclusive access to all the information that the drone will capture.

Source

New Delhi: In a sign of growing closeness between India and the United States amid conflict with China, the Indian Navy has inducted two Predator drones from an American firm on lease for carrying out surveillance in the Indian Ocean Region and which can also be deployed along the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh.

The American-origin drones have been inducted by the Navy under the emergency procurement powers granted by the Defence Ministry in view of the India-China border conflict.

"The drones arrived in India in the second week of November and were inducted into flying operations on November 21 at Indian Navy base at INS Rajali," top government sources told ANI.

The drones have already started flying operations and with an endurance capability of being in the air for over 30 hours, they are proving to be a big asset for the maritime force, they said. An American crew from the vendor is also accompanying the equipment and would help the Navy to operate the machines, the sources said.

The drones are flying in Indian colours and would be on lease with India for one year even as the three services are preparing the case for acquiring 18 more such drones from the US, the sources said.

Under the lease agreement, the American support staff will only help in the maintenance and technical issues whereas the sortie planning and the joystick control would be with the Indian Navy personnel, the sources said.

The data gathered by the drones during the flight would also be the exclusive property of the Indian Navy, the sources said.

I wonder how these lease agreements work as compared to actually buying these systems. I’m guessing there will certainly more strings attached from Uncle Sam (eg: perhaps not to use against Pakistan). But the new leasing clause included in the Indian defence policy is really helping the military fill holes during these unprecedented times with tightening budgets and two belligerent and formidable foes against whom our relative military strength has dwindled and relations are at an all time low.

Also, must be said that such an arrangement requires enormous amounts of trust between the two parties, not just from the Indian side but from the American side as well. All the defence purchases aside, I’d say this is probably the most important development in Indo-US defence relations in recent times. Perhaps this could open way for KC-46 tankers being leased given that the Air Force is considering that route (though the A330 MRTT probably makes more sense for a purchase).