Indian Naval Discussion

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Sep 2012 23:51

On a different note, I was wondering if somebody could explain to me why the HAL Dhruv is a clear no-no for naval operations.

A brief google led me to this fairly old article by Col Shukla, according to which the helicopter falls bang between the Alouette III and the Sea King, and can therefore replace neither. That being the case, why is it the Westland Super Lynx has been serving in the British, French and German Navies for years, despite having specifications that are very similar to the Dhruv? The USN's SeaHawks are even larger and like the Lynx operate alongside the Sea Kings.

There are three basic reasons he lists out -

1. Strengthened undercarriage required.
2. Automatic folding rotor blades required
3. Greater endurance

The first two will lead to weight increases (the IN accepted the 5.1m folded blade width), which should be acceptable given that its superb high altitude performance isn't a prerequisite for naval operations. As for the third, the Dhruv's operational range is well in excess of at least the Alouette's. So what gives? I apologize if the issue has already been hashed out (in which case I'll go pollute the Newbie thread instead). In any case, hopefully the LUH will enter service before any foreign contender in the same bracket can edge close to a firm order.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 26 Sep 2012 23:53

That begs the question. If the size has increased substantially, why is there no substantial increase in the armament? In layman terms, what is the use of a significantly bigger ship if it doesn't carry more missiles?

Longer endurance at sea
More real estate for bigger and more equipment (electronics, EW, etc)
Better for future upgrades - more options
(Perhaps) better survivability in case of direct hit (?)

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 27 Sep 2012 06:29

Viv S wrote:1. Strengthened undercarriage required.
2. Automatic folding rotor blades required
3. Greater endurance

The rotor is hinge less hence is not amenable for folding per Chetak saab, an option may be using a hinged rotor only for naval version

The endurance in ASW role is very limited, and they also wanted firescout/surveilance role as well, they are trying unmanned ALH with Israeli help about 2 years back, not sure what the status is now, a criticism of Dhruv was its analog FCS, I maybe on thin ice here but they first have to transition to a digital FCS for this to be a success.

With a large fleet currently operational they can have a developmental Digital FCS in shadow mode along with the Analog one, iterative updates can be made to the digital FCS across the fleet, this approach is similar to the Tejas FCS driven by 4 flight computers, 3 digital and 1 analog backup. Once the Digital FCS is mature, ALH also can have 2 flight computers with the Analog one as backup

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 27 Sep 2012 12:30

vasu raya wrote:
Viv S wrote:1. Strengthened undercarriage required.
2. Automatic folding rotor blades required
3. Greater endurance
The rotor is hinge less hence is not amenable for folding per Chetak saab, an option may be using a hinged rotor only for naval version

The endurance in ASW role is very limited, and they also wanted firescout/surveilance role as well, they are trying unmanned ALH with Israeli help about 2 years back, not sure what the status is now, a criticism of Dhruv was its analog FCS, I maybe on thin ice here but they first have to transition to a digital FCS for this to be a success.

With a large fleet currently operational they can have a developmental Digital FCS in shadow mode along with the Analog one, iterative updates can be made to the digital FCS across the fleet, this approach is similar to the Tejas FCS driven by 4 flight computers, 3 digital and 1 analog backup. Once the Digital FCS is mature, ALH also can have 2 flight computers with the Analog one as backup

Hingeless rotor does not mean the blade cannot be folded, infact ALH-N was demonstrated with folding blades but the folded diameter was not found to be optimal. The LUH from the beginning will have a blade folding capability and it is a hingeless rotor too, perhaps you've confused yourself with the concept of articulated and hingeless rotors.
The flight controls on the ALH are power assisted mechanical type i.e, mechanical linkages boosted by hydraulic systems and with a digital AFCS. I'm not sure what you mean by digital FCS, maybe you can elaborate on that aspect (ALH already carries two AFCS units)
Cheers!

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 Sep 2012 13:38

Ajay Sharma wrote:
That begs the question. If the size has increased substantially, why is there no substantial increase in the armament? In layman terms, what is the use of a significantly bigger ship if it doesn't carry more missiles?
Longer endurance at sea
More real estate for bigger and more equipment (electronics, EW, etc)
Better for future upgrades - more options
(Perhaps) better survivability in case of direct hit (?)

Better seakeeping, use of weapons at higher sea state.
Two helicopters instead of single, more weapons and fuel - more sorties.
Better crew accommodation, more supplies, more fuel - longer cruise without re-supply.
Survivability difference between 4000 and 6000 ton ship mainly relies on damage control by the crew, larger crew - better damage control (with the same level of training and expertise).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Sep 2012 16:59

http://www.chinesedefence.com/forums/mi ... jmsdf.html

interesting pix of the lead ship of the AKIZUKI class of JMSDF DDG. meant as primarily "escort" ships, with locally made radar. you can see two flat panels in front and two at the back in a unique arrangement. the smaller panels next to main panels may be to communicate with missiles or IFF.

carries a 32 cell Mk41 VLS and ESSM which I guess with quad-packing means 32*4 = 128 ESSM - a massive "cloud" of medium range SAMs.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 27 Sep 2012 18:26

Singha wrote:http://www.chinesedefence.com/forums/mi ... jmsdf.html

interesting pix of the lead ship of the AKIZUKI class of JMSDF DDG. meant as primarily "escort" ships, with locally made radar. you can see two flat panels in front and two at the back in a unique arrangement. the smaller panels next to main panels may be to communicate with missiles or IFF.

carries a 32 cell Mk41 VLS and ESSM which I guess with quad-packing means 32*4 = 128 ESSM - a massive "cloud" of medium range SAMs.

FCS-3A
This is the AAW weapon system of Japanese make. It consists of two main components, one is the dual-band and multimode radar system, and the other is the fire-control system. The FCS-3A system is the derivative of the FCS-3 system of the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, but this system is introduced with the local area defense (LAD) capability. The SAM system integrated with FCS-3A is ESSM.

Also, take notice, that at least 8 cells are used for VL-Asroc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Sep 2012 19:14

looking at the placement and willingness to tolerate a top heavy looking design, seems like they wanted a zero compromise , zero blind-spot soln looking out around 60km LOS against sea skimmers trying to sneak in. ESSM is precisely the kind of weapon to take these on.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2012 03:53

While this should be on the Intl. thread,it is relevant to the ASW discussions here.The US/DARPA is developing an unmanned long endurance (months) anti-sub vessel which can trail an enemy sub indefinitely.This is a revolutionary idea which the IN should examine given the vast area of maritime ops the IN is engaged in.Ck link for pic.

http://jacksonville.com/military/perisc ... der-design

From Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

The growing number of adversaries able to build and operate quiet diesel electric submarines is a national security threat that affects U.S. and friendly naval operations around the world.
To address this emerging threat, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently awarded a contract for Phases 2-4 of its Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel program to Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va.
During Phases 2-4 the ACTUV program will attempt to design, construct and demonstrate an unmanned vessel that tracks quiet diesel electric submarines for months at a time spanning thousands of kilometers of ocean with minimal human input.
“Key features and technology for the vessel include advanced software, robust autonomy for safe operations in accordance with maritime laws, and innovative sensors to continuously track the quietest of submarine targets,” said Scott Littlefield, DARPA program manager.
If successful, ACTUV would create a technological strategic advantage against the burgeoning quiet submarine threat and reduce manpower and other costs associated with current ASW trail operations.
“Our goal is to transition an operational game-changer to the Navy,” said Littlefield. “This should create an asymmetry to our advantage, negating a challenging submarine threat at one-tenth their cost of building subs. The program also establishes foundational technologies for future unmanned naval systems.”
During Phase 1 the program refined and validated the system concept, completing risk reduction testing associated with submarine tracking sensors and maritime autonomy. Operational prototype at-sea testing is expected in mid-2015.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/military/perisc ... z27iDYmzQj

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 28 Sep 2012 05:46

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2012 07:08

Wish we had a video of that launch and iron maiden had a thumping new soundtrack "descent into danger" in bkground.

I still remember the chapter1 of same name in ravi rikheye 1984 indopak war book.....dark moonless night and the mi24s scudding low over the hills near mendhar j&k enroute kahuta.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 28 Sep 2012 07:24

Philip wrote:While this should be on the Intl. thread,it is relevant to the ASW discussions here.The US/DARPA is developing an unmanned long endurance (months) anti-sub vessel which can trail an enemy sub indefinitely.This is a revolutionary idea which the IN should examine given the vast area of maritime ops the IN is engaged in.Ck link for pic.

http://jacksonville.com/military/perisc ... der-design

From Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

The growing number of adversaries able to build and operate quiet diesel electric submarines is a national security threat that affects U.S. and friendly naval operations around the world.
To address this emerging threat, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently awarded a contract for Phases 2-4 of its Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel program to Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va.
During Phases 2-4 the ACTUV program will attempt to design, construct and demonstrate an unmanned vessel that tracks quiet diesel electric submarines for months at a time spanning thousands of kilometers of ocean with minimal human input.
“Key features and technology for the vessel include advanced software, robust autonomy for safe operations in accordance with maritime laws, and innovative sensors to continuously track the quietest of submarine targets,” said Scott Littlefield, DARPA program manager.
If successful, ACTUV would create a technological strategic advantage against the burgeoning quiet submarine threat and reduce manpower and other costs associated with current ASW trail operations.
“Our goal is to transition an operational game-changer to the Navy,” said Littlefield. “This should create an asymmetry to our advantage, negating a challenging submarine threat at one-tenth their cost of building subs. The program also establishes foundational technologies for future unmanned naval systems.”
During Phase 1 the program refined and validated the system concept, completing risk reduction testing associated with submarine tracking sensors and maritime autonomy. Operational prototype at-sea testing is expected in mid-2015.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/military/perisc ... z27iDYmzQj

Very interesting development, wonder what is the power source to sustain it for months. what stops the tagged enemy sub sinking this tracker?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2012 07:36

the packing density and weapons mix of the Mk41 VLS is amazing. using the same kit
AKizuki can become the worlds most heavily armed close in defence ship with upto 128 ESSM
Sejong can stuff in 96 SM2/SM6 and Burke/Kongo 72 if they want
within 3 days dockside, roles can change and instead dozens of TLAMs stuffed in to pound shore targets (was done in libya attack)
even SM2-TBMD can be used as desired

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmhuQqPcOtY

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 28 Sep 2012 13:43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

The Ticonderoga also carries heck of a Ad system with the ability to deploy 122 Ad missile mix of SM2/3, ESSM etc.

SM-6/SM-3 are something we could consider, the long range ability of these missiles is pretty good, it would prevent our future carrier groups from waves of enemy air attacks.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Sep 2012 14:13

No thanks...stay as far away from unkils products as possible. Navalize the AAD if required and extend range of Barak-8 to LR.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2012 15:15

a 120km version of barak8 for IAF/IA has already been contracted for, once the basic IN Barak8 is done.
no doubt IN might want a mix of the two since the range gap 120 and 70 is substantial.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2012 15:18

they way they achieve these massive loadouts is by having a relatively wide ship compared to ours. they use 4 x LM2500 in the 10000t Burke class , while Shivalik class 6000t uses 2xLM2500. infact if I am not mistaken, our ADS1 has same 4xLM2500 loading.

this would indicate the Burke class is overpowered and has a huge reserve power? or it needs such to push its blunt shape fast through the water?

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Sep 2012 21:15

or it needs such to push its blunt shape fast through the water?

Yes. Beyond the critical speed, the resistance starts increasing exponentially. A fatter form will have a lower critical speed than a thin starving Yindoo one.

That said, the Lenght is the single most expensive item of cost. Far cheaper to make a fatter stubbier vessel than a long thin starving Yindoo one of the same displacement.

Carriers anyways need that kind of length for aircraft to take off and land. For eg, the Russian Kuzentsov/Varyag are close to 300m for what a 50K displacement? The US supercarriers are only some 320 odd meters for a whopping 100,000 ton displacement. The Kuzentsov can get away with oil fired boilers while the Nimitz class and later ones will require a nuclear plant that can supply power to half of Madras like Kalpakkam!

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Sep 2012 21:39

Singha wrote:a 120km version of barak8 for IAF/IA has already been contracted for, once the basic IN Barak8 is done.
no doubt IN might want a mix of the two since the range gap 120 and 70 is substantial.

Barak-LR will remain with IAF. IA doesn't operate an long range SAM's. I may go for AKASH-II and Spyder-MR though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Sep 2012 07:41

The aegis system also likely need big scale power. Bigger the ship bigger the hotel loads. Maybe they use 2 turbines for cruising and use the other two for rerserve and hotel loads except when full speed is needed

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2012 12:50

Likely those Aegis huge PESA radar would need substantial power to light up the sky something an additional engine would provide

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Sep 2012 18:34

Justification for a nuclear powered destroyer,

The ability to patrol or arrive at a destination without refueling would be hugely valuable to Russian navy forces. The Russians have long identified interests in the Arctic and continue to face disputes from other neighbors about these claims. Given the difficulty to send ships to the Arctic, the nuclear destroyer would be able to travel there with much greater ease because it would not have to rely on supply ships for fuel. Such a capability would give Russia a marginal lead over other countries.

Another reason for Russia’s interests in nuclear surface ships could be to sell these ships to other navies. Countries such as China will likely need to be able to protect strategic waterways for oil supplies in the future. Nuclear surface ships would be a better choice than non-nuclear because they may not be as vulnerable to supply lines that could be attacked.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... Ships.aspx

Russia will finish in 2016 the construction of a new class destroyer, which will most likely be nuclear powered

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110630/164931731.html

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 29 Sep 2012 18:51

I like the way Russia handled the Soviet fall and the way they kept their military as a deterrent to external interventions. IMHO, the above article is a continuation of Russia's attempt to maintain military superiority after they were left with old Soviet hardware. They concentrated their attention on different parts of their arsenals in different time frames to maximise deterrence.

1990s -- Nuclear weapons
2000s -- Nuclear subs
2010s -- Naval ships
2020s -- Aircraft carriers
2030s -- Strategic Bombers?

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 29 Sep 2012 21:12

In a way they are targeting the developing equilibrium we are trying to establish by allowing China break our stranglehold on Malacca straits they plan to up the game between us and China where another round of arms distribution can happen with they becoming part of the supplier group until a new equilibrium is sought for, as long as they (all arms suppliers) can make money with our arms imports the concepts of adequate deterrence and conventional military balance will be a mirage for us

the recent report on defence spending by BRICS nations should have included the import content, since % of GDP alone may not count

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 30 Sep 2012 10:05

Is the submarine , partially seen, at this location on google earth the Arihant. ONe can make out the conning tower & sail.

Coordinates : +17° 42' 38.20", +83° 16' 4.80

Link : http://maps.google.co.in/maps?q=17.7106 ... 19&iwloc=A

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2012 10:48

i think you got it right. the arihant is facing nose down looking at taper in tail at top end of pic.
seems to be dockside moveable "shamiana" erected to protect the puppy from prying eyes. seems to be tied dockside for harbour trials.

the big permanent building just south of it I believe is the covered shipyard where she was built. no doubt the next puppy is being built inside.

almost our entire eastern fleet tied up to the south, incl trenton, multiple supply ships, atleast 3 rajputs, 3 submarines and so on...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2012 11:18

I dont get this one - if a local product meets the mark, why should there be a multi-vendor dharmic tendering process for what one arm of GOI can supply the other? truly raja harischandra we are.

Defence Ministry scraps Coast Guard tender for helicopters
Press Trust of India

New Delhi: Coast Guard's plan to boost its maritime surveillance capabilities will have to wait as the Defence Ministry has scrapped its tender to procure 16 light helicopters. Only two companies - Indian Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), offering its ALH Dhruv, and European Eurocopter with its twin-engine Panther MB - were in the race for the deal expected to be worth over Rs 1,000 crore.
The tender, issued in July 2011, was cancelled by the Defence Ministry after it was found that the helicopter offered by Eurocopter was not compliant with one of the request for proposal requirements, Defence Ministry officials said. With only ALH Dhruv left in the race, the ministry could not go ahead as single-vendor tenders are not allowed by the Defence Procurement Procedure of the ministry, they said.

The procurement was part of Coast Guard's efforts to enhance its capabilities to tackle terrorism and other threats emanating from sea and to prevent any 26/11-type attacks. The Coast Guard is now planning to issue a fresh tender with new and reviewed specifications in the first quarter of 2013.

In the aftermath of 26/11 attacks, government had cleared several proposals to enhance Coast Guard's aerial surveillance capabilities and had sanctioned acquisition of both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. However, tenders for procuring six maritime surveillance aircraft and dry-leasing 16 helicopters from foreign companies have been scrapped due to one reason or the other in the last four years.

Coast Guard wanted the helicopters to be equipped with surveillance devices to carry out search and rescue roles in coastal areas.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 30 Sep 2012 11:39

@ ^^ I am confused too. Aren't purchases made through FMS route single vendor tenders?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2012 11:52

We are willing to extend fms courtesy to a foreign country but not our own stepsons.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 30 Sep 2012 18:12

Singha wrote:We are willing to extend fms courtesy to a foreign country but not our own stepsons.

Stepsons is the correct word here

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 30 Sep 2012 18:14

We are willing to extend fms courtesy to a foreign country but not our own stepsons.

Saar, it is not a question of courtesy but kharcha pani onlee. They also have wife & kids to care of no?

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 30 Sep 2012 21:05

Septimus P. wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

The Ticonderoga also carries heck of a Ad system with the ability to deploy 122 Ad missile mix of SM2/3, ESSM etc.

SM-6/SM-3 are something we could consider, the long range ability of these missiles is pretty good, it would prevent our future carrier groups from waves of enemy air attacks.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-174.html

US navy is planning to deactivate around 4 Ticonderoga class cruisers in 2013. The 4 ships were commissioned in 1991-1994. All these four ships are the MK-41 Variants. In fact US might not decommission all four and may retain 2 of them.

If we can get US to sell 2 or all 4 of these ships, it would be a great buy. I really cant guess how much US will charge for these behemoths. If all 4 of them are refurbished and upgraded they would be best warships in Indian Navy.

It would be a great purchase to pull off.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2012 22:20

Usa has close to 50 ddg51 ships and dont need the older ticos at all imo. At one time they were churning out 4 burkes a year. Assuming 3 burke per carrier group they could use 15 for five groups and still have 35 left over to pound people randomly.

My hope and prayer is some faithful like taiwan get 2 and philipines 2 with radar upg and sm2 ram and sm6 combo.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 30 Sep 2012 22:54

Taiwan could procure and handle 2-4 Tico's. They already have 4 Kidds. I doubt philipines can afford that.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 30 Sep 2012 23:51

It is probably being considered as commercial purchase and all commercial purchase are mandated to be global tenders to get the best deal. Dharmic but self hurting in this case, although HAL would learn a lesson or two if it looses competition on cost or performance.

I think it is both good and bad!

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 01 Oct 2012 00:03

Rounding up the thoughts around the Vikramaditya boilers episode, IN needs a long term plan for nuclear propulsion units for its fleet, one may view this as going green instead of using fossil fuels and can help reduce the oil deficit

With Malacca straits, the A&N island chain really doesn't have power sources other than through shipped oil, which is where given the islands long coast line, the opportunity of Offshore wind turbines can be first exploited, a technical proposal would be to use Vertical axis wind turbines using turbines derived from 12MW KMGT(Kaveri Marine Gas turbine), while composite wind blades would have to be developed, that kind of expertise exists with DRDO

IN can take the initiative because they have the need, the access to technology, funds and hopefully the research culture, a private company can be roped in as well with a view of commercialising on a large scale, while ISRO can be asked to provide with surface wind speed measuring sensors on some of its Sats

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 01 Oct 2012 00:07

We are going to develop larger reactors for the SSBNs. The current Arihant reactor might be unsuitable for larger boats. In this case, BARC could do well to consider carriers as well so that we could benefit from shared research costs. They might want to standardise on 65000 ton carrier class initially and scale them as the need arises. This could also benefit the nuke sub programme.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Oct 2012 06:26

True state of Indian shipbuilding.

Navy's SOS to Centre....."Our ship-building industry is sinking".TOI 1/10/12.(Print edition)

Former CNS Adm.Suresh Mehta says that our yards are "incapable of meeting our rapidly growing defence needs.."

The IN has prepared a document saying that while foreign builders take "250,000 man hrs to build a 3500t vessel,here it takes 1.8 million man hours to build a Godavari class vessel.."!

"At least 100SSUs (Std. Ship Units) are required in the next 15 years,while we can only build 40 ,total combined capacity of the three shipyards while the CG's requirements is adding to demand",Adm Mehta.

A senior naval official: "China the US and several EU nations have modular ship building projects in which multiple yards construct modules of a large vessel like carriers etc., for final integration and testing at one shipyard,while we are yet to think about such a project as our yards do not have enough waterfronts and a competent design technology."

The IN has about 150 ships and another 75 with the CG.Despite indigenous shipbuilding accounting for nearly "60%" of the IN's annual acquisition budget of 9000 crores ,the country's shipyards continue to remain below intl. standard .In Bombay and Cochin,further dev. is impossible because of lack of space.This doubles building time up to 4 times than that elsewhere worldwide.

At a coordination mtg. at Madras recently,of builders and industrialists,B.Kannan a senior MOD official admitted that the country "lagged behind China or even smaller nations in the development of naval infrastructure,war vessels and submarines."

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 01 Oct 2012 09:04

^ I suppose we should follow Russia's example with Vikram right?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2012 09:32

yesterday before i knew the Ulyanovsk had been scrapped in mid 90s I started google earth and went looking for nikolayev in ukraine. just take a look yourself at the infra the big dogs built up...miles and miles of factory sheds and docks and piers along a rambling bay .... similar and even more scary probably in virginia, kola peninsula, vladivostok and now few places in Cheen as well.
in contrast our shipyards look like village level kirana shops in scale.

we need to walk the talk on the infra front before aspiring even to dominate the IOR, let alone poke our nose in east asia.