Indian Naval Discussion

[Kersi D]

nimitz class has 6 and would be a total waste of precious uranium when gas turbine + diesel works.

SURE ?

I thought all the AC had 1 or 2 nuclear reactors. Only USS Enterprise had 8 nuclear reactors, probably required to steam all the way from US to Bay o Bengal

K

[Craig Alpert]

^^
The NIMITZ Class air craft carrier has TWO NUCELAR reactors that give her virtually unlimited range and endurance with top speeds in excess of 30 knots. She also has EIGHT STEAM TURBINES GENERATORS each producing 8,000 kilowatts of electrical power.

[Singha]

I stand corrected. but are these reactors N times more powerful than the S9G used on latest SSN classes? ...they probably need to be for pushing the beast at 30 knots 'flank' speed after clearing harbour to outrun patrolling submarines. I have read thats some kinda SOP for SAGs moving out of harbour into
areas known to hold enemy subs lying in wait - the entire task force increases speed to max for hours to either outrun subs, force them to expose their hand by shooting right there or miss the chance or force them into high speed (noisy) chase that escorting subs and LRMPs can pick up easier than a bottom feeder quiet sub.

[JTull]

India has never installed a reactor in any surface vessel (we've not even needed an ice breaker). I don't think IN is foolish to install it straight into IAC-2. Maybe on some other survey vessel or something, but definitely not likely on IAC-2.

[ArmenT]

^^
The NIMITZ Class air craft carrier has TWO NUCELAR reactors that give her virtually unlimited range and endurance with top speeds in excess of 30 knots. She also has EIGHT STEAM TURBINES GENERATORS each producing 8,000 kilowatts of electrical power.

^^^
Correction. Nimitz class have 2 reactors that power FOUR (not eight) steam turbine generators. Also, the steam turbine generators are not independent of the reactors -- they are a part of the entire system. The idea is that the reactors produce the heat, which is then used to heat water to produce steam, via a heat exchanger. The steam is then passed through the steam turbines to provide propulsion, electricity, operate catapults etc.

[ArmenT]

I stand corrected. but are these reactors N times more powerful than the S9G used on latest SSN classes? ...they probably need to be for pushing the beast at 30 knots 'flank' speed after clearing harbour to outrun patrolling submarines.

Singha saar, in the case of the big E, each of its eight reactors are individually capable of powering it to close to 30 knots. However, as I explained in my previous post above, it is not the reactors that directly power the ship, but rather the steam turbines which do the job. These are what really limit the speed of the carrier, as the power rating is based on the output of the steam turbines, not the amount of steam produced by the reactors. As it turns out, the steam turbines on the big E are the same model and type as some other earlier non-nuclear carriers such as the Forrestal class and the USS Kitty Hawk (USS Forrestal was the only one that had lower powered steam turbines than the others). Therefore they cannot turn on all eight reactors on the big E to full power and pump all the steam through the turbines, because the steam turbines simply can't handle all that steam! Per the USN, they only turn on a few reactors at a time on the Enterprise and rotate among the reactors. That's also why later model carriers only have 1-2 large reactors. Incidentally, Nimitz class carriers currently also have the same # of turbines and same power output from the steam turbines as the conventionally powered USS Kitty Hawk. Wikipedia says Nimitz class carriers only produce 260,000 SHP (which is what USS Forrestal, the lower powered carrier of the Forrestal class did), but other sources say that they were all later uprated to 280,000 SHP i.e. same power as the rest of the Forrestal class and Kitty Hawk class carriers.

[uddu]

One/two of our carriers in the future can be nuclear powered. Lot of improvements in carrier technology is taking place. If possible we can incorporate many such improvements with IAC-3, that will be nice.
Link
But certainly we need to move forward in terms of technology like in technology. If the size can be reduced in future version of electric propulsion systems, things can be really good.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf6.htm

[Singha]

is probably better we try to buy strategic stakes/JVs in cos like pietstick and wartsila for marine propulsion technology, apart from ukraine zorya.
limited nuclear resources is best devoted to natural circulation reactors suitable for quite submarines. iirc the Ohio class has such a reactor permitting
a high quiet speed.

[Willy]

India has never installed a reactor in any surface vessel (we've not even needed an ice breaker). I don't think IN is foolish to install it straight into IAC-2. Maybe on some other survey vessel or something, but definitely not likely on IAC-2.

We should build a nuclear powered icebreaker to test out the reactor/s. The icebreaker can be used for our regular trips to antartica.

[Katare]

I stand corrected. but are these reactors N times more powerful than the S9G used on latest SSN classes? ...they probably need to be for pushing the beast at 30 knots 'flank' speed after clearing harbour to outrun patrolling submarines.

Singha saar, in the case of the big E, each of its eight reactors are individually capable of powering it to close to 30 knots. However, as I explained in my previous post above, it is not the reactors that directly power the ship, but rather the steam turbines which do the job. These are what really limit the speed of the carrier, as the power rating is based on the output of the steam turbines, not the amount of steam produced by the reactors. As it turns out, the steam turbines on the big E are the same model and type as some other earlier non-nuclear carriers such as the Forrestal class and the USS Kitty Hawk (USS Forrestal was the only one that had lower powered steam turbines than the others). Therefore they cannot turn on all eight reactors on the big E to full power and pump all the steam through the turbines, because the steam turbines simply can't handle all that steam! Per the USN, they only turn on a few reactors at a time on the Enterprise and rotate among the reactors. That's also why later model carriers only have 1-2 large reactors. Incidentally, Nimitz class carriers currently also have the same # of turbines and same power output from the steam turbines as the conventionally powered USS Kitty Hawk. Wikipedia says Nimitz class carriers only produce 260,000 SHP (which is what USS Forrestal, the lower powered carrier of the Forrestal class did), but other sources say that they were all later uprated to 280,000 SHP i.e. same power as the rest of the Forrestal class and Kitty Hawk class carriers.

This doesn't stand scrutiny of logic and basic science. Work done is proportional to amount of speed hence amount os steem or heat generated by nuclear reactors. Larger turbines can propel an aircraft carrier much faster than 30knots. Choice of 30Knots is more likely to be determined by strength of ship steel, limit of load bearing structure, cost/benefit of additional speed and desired life span etc. In short limits of affordable technology of today. Fighter plane prototypes have flown upto 6x the speed of sound decades back but most nations choose to field ~2x as max speed.

If you amke a aircraft carrier using titanium supper alloys, highstrength aluminum, carbon composite material and exotic single xtal materials for load bearing parts you can make it fly at 200knot but it'll cost $200 million Billion to make......

[Singha]

space could also be a constraint. with 30knots considered adequate, the competition to fit in bigger airwing, hangers, POL and munitions bunkers would be there.

while the titanium and carbon composite nimitz mki could make 60 knots running with a fuller complement of turbines, the rest of the SDRE ratpack escorts powered
by CODAG plants could not remotely keep up and nor could escorting submarines.

[geeth]

I had always wondered how Could Unkeel manage space for 8 reactors inside the Enterprise (but then it used to be the longest ship also). As Katare saab says, it is illogical to install reactors, EACH of which could supply steam to ALL turbines. Then two would suffice (extra one for redundancy). Even then, as a matter of standard practice, each would be able to supply steam for 60-70% of max power..

IIRC, there are more than two turbine, steam generator rooms in Enterprise. Too lazy to Google and find out.

[ArmenT]

@Katare: Ever wonder why there is only one Enterprise class carrier? That's because they spent a lot of money just building that one, and the remaining 5 planned were cancelled. That is even without using super-duper alloys and all. Incidentally, they were aiming to get the carrier out on time and they used a model of steam turbine which they knew worked reliably from previous experience, instead of trying to build a newer larger model. You're right of course that it isn't only the steam turbines that limit the top speed. There is also the shafts and the power train and the whole kit and caboodle that transmit the power to the props. Again, the designers used parts that they had previous experience with. However, the nuclear reactors on board are definitely capable of producing more power than what the steam turbines are designed for.

@Singha: You're sort of right on that one. One of the advantages of the Nimitz class is that they can carry way more munitions and aviation fuel than the Enterprise. However, they still needed it to fit into existing docks, which limited the hull dimensions.

@geeth: They are 8 smaller reactors. One of these running at full power can make the Big E travel at a bit less than 30 knots. Hence, to run at max speed of 30+ knots, they use a few reactors, each running at less than full capacity. They use a couple more for generating the steam to power the launching catapults. Incidentally, this was the first carrier that was fitted this particular model of reactor, so the designers went a bit conservative on the number of reactors.

You guys might like this link for more details.

[Singha]

I think its pretty amazing they manage to churn out one of these beasts almost like clockwork every 5 yrs. they sure have a 'system' and that works well for them.

[geeth]

@geeth: They are 8 smaller reactors. One of these running at full power can make the Big E travel at a bit less than 30 knots. Hence, to run at max speed of 30+ knots, they use a few reactors, each running at less than full capacity. They use a couple more for generating the steam to power the launching catapults. Incidentally, this was the first carrier that was fitted this particular model of reactor, so the designers went a bit conservative on the number of reactors.

Followins from the link provided by you..

Quote
Unofficial figures for the Enterprise confirm this; they suggest the ship was designed for 33.0 knots and it has been unofficially suggested that she reached 33.6 knots while running machinery trials after her latest refit. It has been suggested that this figure was "leaked" in order to counter suggestions that she was worn out. In passing, although Enterprise has an eight-reactor power train, only six of the reactors are on line at any one time (the reactors being rotated so that all are used regularly). The reason is quite simple; after recoring, only six reactors are needed to provide all the steam the turbines can handle. [Editor's note: This is not correct. All eight reactors are continually on-line. The Navy originally published a note saying that only six were on line at any one time, but later corrected it.]
Unquote

From above it appears to me that running one reactor alone, the ship won't be able to make speeds close to 30 Knots. Anyway, it doesn't matter - 8 reactors in a ship is out of question these days.

[Kersi D]

India has never installed a reactor in any surface vessel (we've not even needed an ice breaker). I don't think IN is foolish to install it straight into IAC-2. Maybe on some other survey vessel or something, but definitely not likely on IAC-2.

There is always a first time, Mr J Tull. We never installed a nuclear reactor in a submarine. We never ever designed a conventional sub and today we are talking AND making nuclear subs.

I think we should opt for nuclear powered AC as these are fairly big. As and when we master this technology we can opt or n powered surface ships like large 10,000 T destroyers which would require minaturisation.

K

[Kersi D]

is probably better we try to buy strategic stakes/JVs in cos like pietstick and wartsila for marine propulsion technology, apart from ukraine zorya. limited nuclear resources is best devoted to natural circulation reactors suitable for quite submarines. iirc the Ohio class has such a reactor permitting a high quiet speed.

A good idea. Nuclear power will only supplement conventional energy sources. Me think that or quite some time diesel engines and gas turbines will be required, till some new technology comes over

K

[Kersi D]

I stand corrected. but are these reactors N times more powerful than the S9G used on latest SSN classes? ...they probably need to be for pushing the beast at 30 knots 'flank' speed after clearing harbour to outrun patrolling submarines.

Singha saar, in the case of the big E, each of its eight reactors are individually capable of powering it to close to 30 knots. However, as I explained in my previous post above, it is not the reactors that directly power the ship, but rather the steam turbines which do the job. These are what really limit the speed of the carrier, as the power rating is based on the output of the steam turbines, not the amount of steam produced by the reactors. As it turns out, the steam turbines on the big E are the same model and type as some other earlier non-nuclear carriers such as the Forrestal class and the USS Kitty Hawk (USS Forrestal was the only one that had lower powered steam turbines than the others). Therefore they cannot turn on all eight reactors on the big E to full power and pump all the steam through the turbines, because the steam turbines simply can't handle all that steam! Per the USN, they only turn on a few reactors at a time on the Enterprise and rotate among the reactors. That's also why later model carriers only have 1-2 large reactors. Incidentally, Nimitz class carriers currently also have the same # of turbines and same power output from the steam turbines as the conventionally powered USS Kitty Hawk. Wikipedia says Nimitz class carriers only produce 260,000 SHP (which is what USS Forrestal, the lower powered carrier of the Forrestal class did), but other sources say that they were all later uprated to 280,000 SHP i.e. same power as the rest of the Forrestal class and Kitty Hawk class carriers.

This doesn't stand scrutiny of logic and basic science. Work done is proportional to amount of speed hence amount os steem or heat generated by nuclear reactors. Larger turbines can propel an aircraft carrier much faster than 30knots. Choice of 30Knots is more likely to be determined by strength of ship steel, limit of load bearing structure, cost/benefit of additional speed and desired life span etc. In short limits of affordable technology of today. Fighter plane prototypes have flown upto 6x the speed of sound decades back but most nations choose to field ~2x as max speed.

If you amke a aircraft carrier using titanium supper alloys, highstrength aluminum, carbon composite material and exotic single xtal materials for load bearing parts you can make it fly at 200knot but it'll cost $200 million Billion to make......

There is also a limitation on the final thrust given by the propellers. I do not think it is possible to go much beyond 35+ knots using conventional systems like propellers as it would cause cavitation. Maybe water jet systems could be used. Another option could be a above-the-water ship i.e. hovercraft. But I cannot even dream of a say 2,500 MT hovercraft!!

K

[JTull]

India has never installed a reactor in any surface vessel (we've not even needed an ice breaker). I don't think IN is foolish to install it straight into IAC-2. Maybe on some other survey vessel or something, but definitely not likely on IAC-2.

There is always a first time, Mr J Tull. We never installed a nuclear reactor in a submarine. We never ever designed a conventional sub and today we are talking AND making nuclear subs.

I think we should opt for nuclear powered AC as these are fairly big. As and when we master this technology we can opt or n powered surface ships like large 10,000 T destroyers which would require minaturisation.

K

This is not about being a first time for everything.

If you compare the number of nuclear submarines any nation has is clearly lot more than the no. of aircraft carriers. You can build experimental subs and when the tech matures you can incorporate in the sharp end of your forces. Undoubtedly there will be problems with initial designs and engineering. That's why we took Russian help with Arihant because they are well versed with it. It doesn't mean that suddenly we're experts in nuclear propulsion and can fit a reator in any vessel. IN will need to install and experience the technology on another suface vessel before they'll go as far as installing it in IAC-2. Submarines may be very high tech and compact, but the ACs are lot more visible source of power. A navy cannot affort to have a white elephant sitting in a dock (or a rarely available resouce) due to it's failed attempt at nuclear propulsion. It needs an AC that can do the job. If the strategic need arises for surface vessels to have such propulsion, I'm sure IN will have other vessels where they can install it first.

An analogy could be that ISRO would not put Chandrayaan (or a human) on the first test flight of GSLV with indegenous cryo stage. Chandrayaan is too visible an asset that could not be risked (the first flight is obviously very risky, howerver much the designer/engineer may fool himself to think otherwise).

[Kersi D]

India has never installed a reactor in any surface vessel (we've not even needed an ice breaker). I don't think IN is foolish to install it straight into IAC-2. Maybe on some other survey vessel or something, but definitely not likely on IAC-2.

There is always a first time, Mr J Tull. We never installed a nuclear reactor in a submarine. We never ever designed a conventional sub and today we are talking AND making nuclear subs.

I think we should opt for nuclear powered AC as these are fairly big. As and when we master this technology we can opt or n powered surface ships like large 10,000 T destroyers which would require minaturisation.

K

This is not about being a first time for everything.

If you compare the number of nuclear submarines any nation has is clearly lot more than the no. of aircraft carriers. You can build experimental subs and when the tech matures you can incorporate in the sharp end of your forces. Undoubtedly there will be problems with initial designs and engineering. That's why we took Russian help with Arihant because they are well versed with it. It doesn't mean that suddenly we're experts in nuclear propulsion and can fit a reator in any vessel. IN will need to install and experience the technology on another suface vessel before they'll go as far as installing it in IAC-2. Submarines may be very high tech and compact, but the ACs are lot more visible source of power. A navy cannot affort to have a white elephant sitting in a dock (or a rarely available resouce) due to it's failed attempt at nuclear propulsion. It needs an AC that can do the job. If the strategic need arises for surface vessels to have such propulsion, I'm sure IN will have other vessels where they can install it first.

An analogy could be that ISRO would not put Chandrayaan (or a human) on the first test flight of GSLV with indegenous cryo stage. Chandrayaan is too visible an asset that could not be risked (the first flight is obviously very risky, howerver much the designer/engineer may fool himself to think otherwise).

Agreed

What i am saying is that it MAY be easier to design a larger (~ 10,000 T) surface ship rather than a smaller (~ 4,000 T) surface ship, with nuclear propulsion. No doubt each system will have its own nuances abd complications.

K

[uddu]

IBSAMAR-II

[Pratyush]

Guys,

The principles of Nuke propulsion for a ship and a nuke power plant are not that dissimilar. If the BARC can design a minature reactor and assorted machinery to fit in an AC hull. Then rest assured that it will function on the first go itself. The challange rests in designing and fabricationg the reactor.

If that can be overcome then no need to have a prototype.

PS: a NUKE AC cannot be a prototype. It will have to be an ocean going asset.

[D Roy]

over 85 percent of nuke power reactors started of as naval propulsion designs.

[Philip]

Go Navy Go!

The cancelled deal for U-214 subs between Greece and Germany gives the IN a great opportunity to quickly acquire German U-boats,successors to the U-209 class which we operate ,which are going to be sold to the highest boidder.Pajistan is desperately tryoing to acquire the same from Germany as they realise that quality wise,they have inferior subs to India barring their Agosta 90-Bs which will be inferior to India's Scorpenes when they arrive on the scene.

These U-boats which come with AIP,can be acquired very quickly and will not in any way stop the second line of subs programme from going ahead,as that pogramme envisages a line of subs that can carry Brahmos,etc.The U-214s can replace our older U-209s which are/going to be upgraded,but which possess limitations in the upgrades.Acquiring the U-boats will help us also to replace in number the older Kilos which cannot be upgraded to "Klub" std. too.

Great opportunity here for us to revitalise the fast depleting number of our sub fleet.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 00926.aspx

[quote]The Repo Man Grabs Greek U-Boats
September 26, 2010: The financial crises in Greece has claimed another victim, the four German Type 214 subs the Greek Navy bought, but was unable to pay for. One of the boats was built in Germany, the other three in a Greek shipyard. But the Greeks owed the German manufacturer, and the Greek shipyard, nearly $800 million. The Greek government has now admitted that the cash is not available, and is not likely to be for some time. So the 214s will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Late payment has not been the only problem with these subs. For the last four years, Greece and German submarine builder ThyssenKrupp have been arguing over the quality of German work on the Type 214 boats. Six months ago, the Greeks finally agreed to the original deal, and declared the quality issues resolved. It was about time. Four years ago, the first Type 214 arrived from Germany. But the Greeks quickly declared that the boat suffered from 400 defects. Meanwhile, the other three 214s were being built in Greece, and the first one of those was about ready for launch.

When the Germans first heard of the complaints, they thought it was politics. A new Greek government had just been installed, and it was common for the new officials to try and make the previous gang look bad. The Germans also expected that the Greeks were using this defect list to renegotiate the contract, and pay less than they had agreed to. The Germans eventually concluded that nearly all the 400 defects were bogus.

Finding that that all the claims were false or exaggerated, the Germans sued for breach of contract. The Greeks responded by refusing to accept the sub, which remained tied up in Germany. Then the Germans threatened to withdraw technical help for the Greek shipyard that was building the other three boats, and go to court to prevent the Greeks from using any of the German technology. Meanwhile, the three boats constructed in the Greek shipyard are largely finished, but not complete. Two years ago, the Greeks offered to settle the dispute, but they didn't have the cash to make the required payments.
[/quotPS:WHen even the first Scorpenes have yet to be tested in IN service,I would be sceptical about extending the order for another 6 until these subs have been extensively evaluated and tested.
Moreover,the advantages of MESMA over fuel-cell or Stirling engine AIP tech is unresolved.The German fuel-cell U-boats have been peforming very well and are the fastest growing AIP sub class in the world,with SoKo building them and many nations including Turkey acquiring them.

The advantage of German subs is that we have been used to operating 4 of them and the U-214 successors to the U-209s will be easy to induct for us.

[kit]

The controlling stakes of the Hellenic Shipyards have been acquired by an UAE conglomerate.

[Philip]

It would be a huge step for the UAE to acquire subs,but they're very ambitious and might want to counter Iranian subs! The Germans do have a veto though and selling the Arabs German subs would not be liked by the Israelis.These subs in my opinion are too large for the UAE who would require smaller 1500t subs at the most.Setting up a whole new set up to train,acquire and maintain these sophisticated subs would tax the human resources of the UAE.When even OZ cannot handle its sub production,manning and maintenance even though it has built the Collins class at home,will the UAE fare better? Very doubtful.

While the US slept,China built a blue-water navy!
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 00926.aspx

[kit]

This would be interesting.,

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/575609-a ... krupps-hdw

Shipbuilding group Abu Dhabi MAR said it wants to expand its partnership with Germany's ThyssenKrupp by taking a stake in its submarine unit Howaltdswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW).



All said and done, the UAE seems to be proactive in its effort to build up an indigenous hitech arms industry, judging by the buys and acquisitions and the offset deals, if you look closely at the deals that has gone through and also those in the pipeline.The country s size does not quite justify the huge investments just for defense purposes but ostensibly to build up a military industrial base.

[manum]

If they hold some technology copyrights, shared with few nations...it makes sense...to make use of them, on that basis they can start, or else they will remain producers of Movie...

[Singha]

UAE seems trying to do a singapore. but remember singapore had a good base in manufacturing of all types before ST kinetics came about.

[Kartik]

If those Greek U-214s will be auctioned off, then expect Pakistan to be at the top of the list of nations that will look to scalp them at discounted prices. They have not been able to afford U-214s and any price reduction will make these attractive to them..

In our case, the only problem that these U-214's present is that they're nearly complete and while being a really quick force multiplier for any navy (which is a huge plus for the IN whose submarine force is in a truly bad shape), will bring negligible benefits in terms of local employment, or technology gain for local shipyards..maybe except for local fitment of some equipment (for eg. in IN's case could be indigenous sonar) there is little that can be done on these.

But in this case, the GoI and PSU shipyards with their never ending bureaucracy and red-tape have brought us into a state where a quick purchase, delivery and operationalisation of 4 U-214s would be a hugely advantageous deal for the IN. But, anything that is a vaguely smart thing to do will not be done by the GoI or MoD. So, pipe dreams aside, those U-214s will not enter IN service for sure.

[ramana]

If the IN wants to acquire them the PN will go to any lengths to do the same. So India should bid for them. Maybe a nice way to have the Greeks balied out?

[jai]

anything that is a vaguely smart thing to do will not be done by the GoI or MoD

If the Choppers, Arty Guns, refullers and other projects are any indication, you are spot on ! Not sure if our decision making can move this quickly.

It would be great to deny the Pakis the subs for sure !

[Prasad]

It might sound cheesy and filmy but couldn't we just throw in a feeler that we might be interested in buying them. Even if the paki navy ends up getting them, we might as well drive up the prices a tad.

[suryag]

Vizag to build torpedoes
Any idea if it is the indigenous heavy one that they are building here ? I havent heard of BDL entering into a manufacturing agreement for torpedoes with foreign companies

[Philip]

Kartik,Ramanna,The German govt. is not that keen on exporting the U-214s to Pak for several reasons,not least being that of the tech landing up in PLAN hands.Pak has done it before and apart from that,India is believed to have put some pressure upon the German govt. post 26/11 not to reward Pak with U-boats.It might explain why HDW as also given a clean chit after decades of controversy.I posted in the TSP thread an article about the corruption allegations against the Paki naval chief,who wants the old Agostas to be upgraded.Critics say this is because he can get kickbacks more easily from the French!

Now that we have pensioned off the last of the Foxtrots,we desperately need new subs asap and the German U-boats,follow on to the U-209s which we have will be the easiest and fastest to induct into In service.We are familiar with German sub.tech and tyhese will prove excellent companions for the older boats which also need upgrading.These subs will also arrive before the Scorpenes too,as one is ready for commissioning and the others in an advanced state of completion.

[SriSri]

Indian Navy Leads Coastal Security Exercise Neptune-II off Lakshadweep Islands

[Thomas Kolarek]

Its a God send opportunity for us to acquire sub quickly. India should grab it with both hands.

[Singha]

imo the pakis will get two at a discount and argentina or chile might get the other two. in the worst case the german navy might take a couple as reserve and training boats. even Soko could be interested to beef up numbers quicker.

no way will India ever grab any opportunity quickly! we need a 10 yr decision cycle.

[ShivaS]

kya yar (in desi style) why foreign companies to build tarpedoes when MOD nad IN can easily sink L&T making subs.
My BP goes up when we start talking collobration every thing, we dont want move our butt and learn to do things, just screw driver technology.

I feel like Vodofone parrot, Mundi katwaunga aur yoga class shru kardega

[Philip]

An Indian lightweight anti-sub torpedo was seen quite a while back at defence shows.Reports of "heavweight" fish also being developed surfaced.One presumes that the facility will produce all kinds of fish in the future,of the kind we are using and plan to acquire with the new subs and ASW air assets being indcuted or planned.