Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

member_28714 · Post by **member_28714** » 09 Sep 2014 09:26

bhavani wrote:
Pratyush wrote:The French should not be touched with a barge pole after they have canceled the dilivery of the ships already paid for.
2 of them are ready for delivery and if the french cancel the contract, we can pick up 2 ready made top class amphibous ships with no wait time.

The french are under pressure from UK, USA and all the assorted Euro countries. No body would oppose the ships being sold to us.

You think Putin will be happy with that?

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 09 Sep 2014 09:32

I apologize if posted earlier otherwise good once for wallpapers

member_28305 · Post by **member_28305** » 09 Sep 2014 09:50

Wow.. awesome pics.. thanks for the same.
I dont think these pics were posted here before.. atleast not with these kind of details.

srin · Post by **srin** » 09 Sep 2014 10:31

The SBTF is a fantastic thing. Not just for pilot training for carrier ops but also for LCA-N development trials.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 09 Sep 2014 10:50

Awesome pics!

Can someone point to vids showing IN pilots landing the 29 on vik?

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 09 Sep 2014 11:29

SNaik wrote:
rohitvats wrote:There is a very interesting figure in the estimate versus actual chart posted on last page.

Just check the numbers under 'Secondary Structure Renewal (tonnes)' - 80 versus 2,100. That is 2,600% increase in actual over the estimate. But even that is not the 'most' interesting aspect. The surface displacement of a Kilo Class submarine is 2,300 tonnes. If my conclusion is correct, it would mean that almost 90% of the submarine by weight has been either repaired or replaced! Either Russians are too smart or we are complete dorks.

And the timing of report is interesting - HSL has been 'left' out of latest upgrade package for the six-Kilo submarines.
There is a possible explanation to some of the figures, albeit probably not a very popular one. At least, it may explain the totally ridiculous figure of 90% structural renewal and a few others. If you do something wrong on the first try, you have to redo it again as many times as necessary to be accepted. For instance, if the weld is defective, it has to be re-welded. If you muck up with cabling or piping, you have to break it up and do again. Und so weiter.

Now this makes complete sense. With HSL's dismal track record, as pointed out in other posts, I believe this is one of the major contributing factors to the Kilo overhaul saga. While there is an excellent chance that the Russians did delay, they could have taken advantage of HSL's incompetence and ridden its coattails to worsen matters to the point that the GoI decided to send future refurb work to Russian yards. So while the facts of Mr. Shukla's report are correct, his diagnosis of the root cause does not seem to have taken HSL's work quality standards and ethics into account, and therefore presents a lopsided version of the truth.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2014 11:48

bhavani wrote:
Pratyush wrote:The French should not be touched with a barge pole after they have canceled the dilivery of the ships already paid for.
2 of them are ready for delivery and if the french cancel the contract, we can pick up 2 ready made top class amphibous ships with no wait time.

The french are under pressure from UK, USA and all the assorted Euro countries. No body would oppose the ships being sold to us.

You think Putin will be happy with that?[/quote]

those mistrals are designed to withstand ice and customized for the Russians ..makes no sense for any other country except for Canada and the french themselves

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 09 Sep 2014 11:53

I think we should go with Oiro subs for littoral play; get 6 more scorp and be done with it. Hand them over to cost guard if needed and free IN for massive SSN/SSGN/SSBN combo for true blue capability. The subs good for littoral area are not going to cross ocean to reach the intended operational zone, we have those requirements in our backyard only.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2014 02:39

tushar_m wrote: http://i.imgur.com/GJlrXeq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/VoIq9K1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AdrjKVs.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/asthhbc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/wI9NGlv.jpg
I apologize if posted earlier otherwise good once for wallpapers.

Excellent pictures! Thank you!

I need to check my understanding about the SBTF.

During launch and recovery at sea, the AC turns into the wind and goes full steam ahead. This allows the aircraft to have a lesser relative velocity with respect to the carrier (50 -100 kmph lesser) than its true airspeed. This cannot be done with a stationary SBTF. Therefore the stress on man and machine is much higher on the SBTF if it was true replica of the aircraft carrier. To offset this during take-off, a longer takeoff run is allowed to let the aircraft gain the same true airspeed as in sea. Also, the curvature of the lip of the ramp is much more gradual to avoid extra stress on the oleo expansions. I am somewhat certain of this part.

Is something done during landing too? For example, is there less tension in the arrestor cables, thereby simulating the same deceleration as on an aircraft carrier? Or are no such measures taken as both man and machine can bear this extra? Does anybody know?

Look at the head of the pilot!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2014 09:05

IR,

Turning into the wind and going full speed for launch and recovery is fine and would agree with for a flat deck design. However, for a Ski Jump Bow, will this still work?

Would the Ski Jump Bow not act as an air dam?

Just curious about the dynamics of takeoff from ships.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2014 10:55

^^^
Shouldn't be a problem at the speed of AC which is not that great. The airflow should be completely attached and smooth.

I guess changing tension in the cable wouldn't be an issue. And as compared to actual AC landing, on ground the aircraft would land with higher relative velocity w.r.t. the runway due to absence of ship motion. So the cables would be absorbing higher KE and thus higher stress loads. I think its logical to assume that the landing distance would be same as that on AC for proper training purpose as its quite critical thing. So to absorb higher KE in same distance, you need higher deceleration, thereby giving higher stress loads. But I guess the aircraft should be easily handle this increase in load and stress without any issue. I wonder how much difference there would be. Does this sound logical??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2014 11:32

You are right. The air flow on a ski jump is like the upper surface of a wing when the wing is flying at 14 degrees AoA and at slow speed .i.e. not very ~~laminar~~ turbulent.

But it does not matter much because when the plane leaves a ski jump, it is not generating enough lift to support its own weight. We will call this moment T0. From T0, it is on a ballistic path accelerating towards the critical speed where its wings can generate enough lift to support its own weight. During this part of the flight, the instantaneous airspeed at any moment T1 is AC speed+wind speed+speed of the aircraft relative to the AC at T0+speed gained between T1 and T0.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2014 11:42

^^^

Am sorry if I come across as very dense. However, won't the absence of the sky jump create the same situation for the aircraft, when it left the ship.

Or is the sky jump in place to make sure that the aircraft has sufficient height to make sure that transition from wings not generating enough lift to wings generating enough lift for horizontal flight takes place without the jet crashing, on the basis of engine power alone.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2014 12:29

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Am sorry if I come across as very dense. However, won't the absence of the sky jump create the same situation for the aircraft, when it left the ship.

Yes, just that your deck has to be longer in the second case.

Pratyush wrote: Or is the sky jump in place to make sure that the aircraft has sufficient height to make sure that transition from wings not generating enough lift to wings generating enough lift for horizontal flight takes place without the jet crashing, on the basis of engine power alone.

Almost right. Please consult this image.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Sep 2014 13:00

indranilroy wrote:You are right. The air flow on a ski jump is like the upper surface of a wing when the wing is flying at 14 degrees AoA and at very slow speed .i.e. not very laminar.

not very turbulent??

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2014 13:17

The ski-jump also ensures that if the flight deck is pitching during launch the aircraft has enough speed and height to prevent it from ditching into the sea.

member_28714 · Post by **member_28714** » 10 Sep 2014 19:50

Newbie question regarding the Scorpene.

Will the IN eventually replace the obsolete Exocet with something else or are we stuck with that for the life of the sub?

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 10 Sep 2014 21:53

Books by IN Commanders refer to the 80s-90s as the " Lost Decade". Well, a second lost decade just happened. The problem is lack of strategic mindset. This is not taught by either the UPA or the NDA. Mere study of history , or a close study of countries in our neighborhood would have been adequate. If locally built Submarines were encouraged, even a new Foxtrot Class sub would have been welcome. Certain tasks like destroyer escort, coastal surveillance, complementing the Kilo/U-209, training duties, goodwill visits to overseas ports, exercises with phoren peoples, and as a platform to test domestic eqpt. (Torpedo, Sonar, periscope mast, VLF comm, command and control, local battery, AIP )

As a layman, and considering the situation as reported in the media, i would be happy to take such as available.
The Chinese brought a lot of Russian consultants and made domestic versions, considered quite inferior by our planners who had the cream of the crop to choose from.
Well, the Chinese haven't ordered any new Kilos for about a decade, which points to their domestic effort being as good as as Kilo. While we wallow in a sludge of our own making.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2014 22:24

nileshjr wrote:
indranilroy wrote:You are right. The air flow on a ski jump is like the upper surface of a wing when the wing is flying at 14 degrees AoA and at very slow speed .i.e. not very laminar.
not very turbulent??

Arrgh. Effects of typing very late at night. Corrected. Thanks.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 11 Sep 2014 04:08

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Am sorry if I come across as very dense. However, won't the absence of the sky jump create the same situation for the aircraft, when it left the ship.

Or is the sky jump in place to make sure that the aircraft has sufficient height to make sure that transition from wings not generating enough lift to wings generating enough lift for horizontal flight takes place without the jet crashing, on the basis of engine power alone.

Lift is generated by changing aircraft velocity, AoA or both. If you stick your hand out of a moving car with the palm flat and parallel to the ground, you will feel the airflow lifting your hand. This is the result of the airflow velocity over your palm. Still keeping your palm flat if you increase the speed of the car your hand will lift up higher at higher speed. Now change the angle of your palm so your thumb moves upwards and you will feel a greater lift. This is the result of changing the angle of attack wrt the airflow. When an aircraft climbs it is a combination of increased velocity, and/or change in AoA of the airfoil.

Flat surface take offs does not allow you to change the angle of attack on the airfoil without attaining the required speed. This is known as V(r), ie the minimum safe velocity which will allow the aircraft to be put into a nose-up attitude (thus changing the AoA) and not stall under given atmospheric conditions, weight and altitude. If an aircraft changes its AoA without being at its minimum designated V(r) it will stall.

A ski jump changes the AoA of the airfoil, WITHOUT actually being at the designated V(r) of the aircraft. Allowing the aircraft to climb while still gaining speed to transition to level flight after launch. It does not need thrust vectoring, though it does requires a precise calculation of the deck angle needed to do so without stalling. IIRC the ski jump angle of the Viraat which launches thrust vectoring Harriers is different from the ski jump angle of the Vick which launches non thrust-vectoring MiG 29's.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Sep 2014 05:44

One more to arrive later in the year

5th Indian navy P-8I Maritime Patrol Aircraft arrives at Naval Air Station Rajali

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 13 Sep 2014 02:55

James Fisher Defence wins Indian Navy submarine rescue contract

Rahul Bedi, New Delhi and James Hardy, London - IHS Jane's Navy International
10 September 2014

The Indian Navy (IN) has shortlisted the UK's James Fisher Defence (JFD) to supply it with two 30-ton deep submergence rescue vehicles (DSRVs) for about INR4 billion (USD66.66 million).

IN officials told IHS Jane's on 9 September that a DSRV offered by JFD was recently selected over a Russian vessel after emerging as L1, or the lowest bidder, after user evaluation and trials. They said the Ministry of Defence would sign a contract over the next 6-8 months following price negotiations with JFD.

The IN operates only one diving support vessel - INS Nireekshak - that also doubles as a submarine rescue vessel and has been seeking two DSRVs for nearly 17 years. Its initial attempt to acquire them in 2005 was called off following corruption allegations and the requirement was re-tendered in 2010.

As an interim measure, in 1997 the IN signed a USD734,443 contract with the US Navy for its "global submarine rescue fly-away kit" service.

Acquiring DSRV capability gained impetus after INS Sinshurakshak , a Russian 'Kilo'-class submarine, exploded in the Naval Dockyard in Mumbai in August 2014, killing all 18 IN personnel on board.

JFD has previously sold DSRVs of a similar class to the Indian requirement to Singapore and South Korea. In December 2008 the Republic of Korea Navy's DSRV II - based on JFD's deep search-and-rescue (DSAR) 500-class submersible - achieved a depth of 507 m during sea acceptance tests, the deepest recorded dive in the navy's history.

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 13 Sep 2014 02:58

http://jfdefence.com/documents/SubRes_DSAR_lowres.pdf

http://jfdefence.com/products/dsar/index.php

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Sep 2014 04:33

Pratyush wrote:The French should not be touched with a barge pole after they have canceled the dilivery of the ships already paid for.

Also, the rear part of the Mistral (Vladivostok) was built in Russia and fitted to the French front section.

This was not a turnkey delivery by any means. It's very Russian-specific including specifications on alloys and tolerances that differ from the French Mistral.

Not fungible. I know we love to buy cheap but...

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 13 Sep 2014 08:06

^ Yes, we bought the Vikramaditya on the cheap

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 13 Sep 2014 23:01

Pretty much!

India'd be happy to purchase a new-build bespoke carrier and associated air-wing at $2b-$3b, just show the MOD where.

John · Post by **John** » 14 Sep 2014 04:52

Shalav wrote:Pretty much!

India'd be happy to purchase a new-build bespoke carrier and associated air-wing at $2b-$3b, just show the MOD where.

2.3 Billion for Vikram that said P-75I might end up cost more per vessel than that.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Sep 2014 05:18

John wrote:
Shalav wrote:Pretty much!

India'd be happy to purchase a new-build bespoke carrier and associated air-wing at $2b-$3b, just show the MOD where.
2.3 Billion for Vikram that said P-75I might end up cost more per vessel than that.

Yep. And the Russians are just waiting for us to bite on one more of their failed projects. Maybe the Oscar class rust buckets for free plus the cost of refurbishment. They'll even throw in a couple of Beriev seaplanes (are you listening Philip?

)

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 14 Sep 2014 07:46

The REAL price paid for Vikramaditya was the delay on starting on IAC - Every import releases the pressure for domestic acquisition.

Easier to buy food from restaurant than cooking yourselves, long term health hazard not considered thought!

John · Post by **John** » 14 Sep 2014 09:58

Vikrant construction delays have nothing to do with Vikramaditya you can make a case for perhaps Russian supply of steel but that's about it. The issue at hand is domestic shipbuilding capabilities and need to update exists port to handle vessels the size of Vikramaditya/Vikrant.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 14 Sep 2014 10:14

chackojoseph wrote:One more to arrive later in the year

5th Indian navy P-8I Maritime Patrol Aircraft arrives at Naval Air Station Rajali

Chacko, any idea where they stopover on the long flight from Seattle, would be interesting to know the range between each stop over from refueling.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 14 Sep 2014 16:02

John wrote:Vikrant construction delays have nothing to do with Vikramaditya you can make a case for perhaps Russian supply of steel but that's about it. The issue at hand is domestic shipbuilding capabilities and need to update exists port to handle vessels the size of Vikramaditya/Vikrant.

Oh yeah, Putin decided to starve us from building IAC by NOT delivering steel- that's about it! Nothing evil about Russian support, just pure competitive behavior at play.

We did make steel and upgraded our shipyards for IAC > JUST A 1.5 DECADES LATER

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 14 Sep 2014 18:59

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/rs ... ry/1289021

The Defence Ministry has decided that only private sector shipyards, including Pipavav, ABG and L and T, along with their foreign partners, would be allowed to take part in the Rs 25,000 crore project for building the four Landing Platform Docks, Navy sources told PTI here.
The Navy had issued tenders to these three private shipyards last year and decided to keep out Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), saying it was building the 40,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier and it should focus on that major project only for the moment.
However, CSL approached former Defence Minister A K Antony through the Ministry of Shipping and the deal was put on hold to consider whether the tender should be retracted or CSL could also be issued the tender and a committee under an Additional Secretary was formed to look into the matter.

John · Post by **John** » 14 Sep 2014 19:01

nik wrote:
Oh yeah, Putin decided to starve us from building IAC by NOT delivering steel- that's about it! Nothing evil about Russian support, just pure competitive behavior at play.

We did make steel and upgraded our shipyards for IAC > JUST A 1.5 DECADES LATER

Medvedev not Putin was Russia's Primier at the time and delay hurt all our shipbuilding not just Vikrant it had to do with russia production problems. There is no excuse to be importing steel from Russia, when you import that is always the risk what is stop Obama from holding up LM2500 parts and stopping Vikrant construction it already happened with Shivalik? No Phase II expansion is still underway hopefully by the time Vikrant is finished our bases' will be able to handle them.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 14 Sep 2014 22:49

Rs 25,000 crore Navy tender only for private sector: Defence ministry

The defence ministry has decided that only private sector shipyards, including Pipavav, ABG and L and T, along with their foreign partners, would be allowed to take part in the Rs 25,000 crore project for building the four Landing Platform Docks,

Navy sources said.

The Navy had issued tenders to these three private shipyards last year and decided to keep out Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), saying it was building the 40,000-tonne Indigenous Aircraft Carrier and it should focus on that major project only for the moment.

However, CSL approached former defence minister A K Antony through the Ministry of Shipping and the deal was put on hold to consider whether the tender should be retracted or CSL could also be issued the tender and a committee under an Additional Secretary was formed to look into the matter.

The committee report was presented before the last Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the UPA government in February but it was decided that it would be kept on hold.

In a similar case, the defence ministry had rejected the plea of public sector firms to take part in a Rs 15,000 crore tender to build 56 transport aircraft for the air force and allowed only private players to take part in it.

-Ankit

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 15 Sep 2014 00:26

However, CSL approached former defence minister A K Antony through the Ministry of Shipping and the deal was put on hold to consider whether the tender should be retracted or CSL could also be issued the tender and a committee under an Additional Secretary was formed to look into the matter.

The committee report was presented before the last Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) of the UPA government in February but it was decided that it would be kept on hold.

UPA could not take a decision for a year even when all the involved companies are domestic. I shudder to think what the situation could have been if UPA3 came to power.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Sep 2014 04:46

The Beriev's are excellent amphibs.They've proven themselves for several years,was displayed at an Aero-India,waterbombing the tarmac. The desire to acquire Japanese amphibs is more of a political statement and signal to China. The Russian amphibs would've come in far cheaper.There is a greater 3m wave sea state operational advantage with the Japanese amphibs though,perhaps a factor that tilted the scales.Don't write off Soviet era subs that easily.Their hulls can last out half a century or more,100 years in the case of the ti hulled subs,a couple of which are being thoroughly modernised for the RuN.They can even dive deeper than enemy torpedoes. The Oscars would require a huge infrastructure capability to operate.Their huge missile silos could easily house a future desi ICBM of 10K+ range.One would however prefer our future SSBNs built at home.There is no problem acquiring Russian tech/inputs though for several features,no need to reinvent the wheel.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 15 Sep 2014 10:18

CSL attempting an entry during UPA2 looks like another attempt at biting more than one can chew. Ah, when will the PSUs learn to be honest and realistic is beyond me.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Sep 2014 13:52

like HAL they want to lock in enough guaranteed work until 20 years and then brag about order book being Nx1000 crores. doesnt matter what is the rate of production to match the security needs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2014 12:09

“Delay is the price for high-tech systems”, says Vice Admiral Satish Soni, who heads Eastern Naval Command