Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 25 Sep 2015 07:59

pic taken Sept 14, 2015-- Russia

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Sep 2015 09:19

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Question for Naval gurus - what is our doctrine that leads us to have just 32 VLS cells for SAMs in our Project 15 A and B destroyers. There must be some logic to this ??

Question for you is in what kind of situations do you foresee one IN ship using more than 32 SAMs in one deployment?

Typically P-15A/B will be part of a larger group of ships and together they will hold enough SAMs for even extreme and unlikely threats that the IN ships will face. Most of the IN's ship would operate within a reasonable distance from Indian naval ports where they can get relieved and have their stocks replenished. If you look at new European FFG/DDG, they hold less than that.

If we were to look at 1982 Falkland War as a guide to modern naval warfare, the RN would deploy a pair of ships comprising of a DDG (equipped with MR SAM) and FFG (equipped with SR SAM and AShM/ASW) as SAM pickets along threat axis. They would rotate these pairing and deployments with other ships in the main carrier fleet. Argentinians attacked in small waves and not in overwhelming "Tom Clancy"-type of numbers. So unless the IN is planning to operate close to a foreign soil (or USN) where that opponent has a vast number of AShM and aircrafts at its disposal, the IN would not come under multiple intense saturation attacks while at sea. Besides, naval ports will be relatively close by for relief and replenishment in the IOR.

On the other note, 32 SAM capacity is more or less equivalent to one land SAM battery.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2015 09:46

A bit underarmed to me. The Kol class and follow on could do with more SAMs and a more heavily layered efnce against missile and air threats.I was dusting off details about the Kirov class CBG armamament.4 diff SAM types apart from gatlings,etc. V.heavily armed for a flagship. The Kol class in the NCW era,with the second bridge is perhaps for serving as flagship for a task force,where a R.Adm. would perhaps be in command,with the necessary space,consoles,etc. for the same.We don't possess larger surface combatants. The Japanese in WW2 usually used a battleship or heavy cruiser as the flagship,not a carrier.Right now a Russian Slava is serving as flagship for its Meditt. force operating out of Syrian ports.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2015 10:16

PS: "Going,going,almost gone".Russia's Mistrals will now be sold to Egypt.Both Russian and French sources have acknowledged in the latest reports.Russia and Egypt have embarked upon huge new arms deals for MIG-29/35s,the Mistrals and other def. eqpt. Thje Egyptians will in all probability also acquire Russian naval KA-52 assault/attack helos. These warships will as early as poss,. see the Egyptians use them in the Yemeni conflict in support of the Saudi-backed regime.The Saudis are supposed to be bankrolling the sale,as a reward for the Egyptians coming to their rescue in Yemen.The Pakis,sh*tting bricks as ususal,did not respond,angering their chief Muslim benefactor and patron enormously.The Pakis must be gnashing their teeth and chewing their fingernails in envy and regret.

That now leaves the door wide open for the design for our amphibs. In the absence of any deisgn on the horizon,may we still plead for a second Vikrant class CV built asap to fit the bill temporarily?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Sep 2015 01:26

For quick delivery alone, it truly makes sense to buy these frigates. My guess is that Reliance (or any other Indian collaborator) will tow/move the incomplete hulls to India, and then complete the construction with Russian and Ukranenian parts.

http://charly015.blogspot.com.es/

In recent days the rumor gets hard on a possible solution to the power plant for the project 11356 frigates for the Russian Navy modified. We talked about the 4th and 5th under construction but will not receive the Ukrainian turbines if ships are built for the Russian Navy.

And the tone is that not receive Ukrainian turbines if ships are destined for the Russian Navy. There, as they say, is when the kill. It seems that speculated that India acquire vessels (in fact negotiates for another 3 Project 11356 frigates) killing two birds with one stone; on the one hand, the construction of these frigates would be finalized and, on the other, India would get two more advanced than expected and installing equipment for the Russian Navy frigates. Especially in reference to air defense system Shtil 1.

During a visit to Kaliningrad shipyard Yantar Ambassador of India in Russia, Srinivasan Raghavan, made it clear that his country is interested in acquiring the three frigates 11356 modified project that are under construction in the Shipyard yore and suffering delays due to the cancellation of the collaboration on boat engines for Russians and Ukrainians carried out. The solution to this problem may be that these three frigates sold to India and save the pitfall of Ukrainian turbines in this case being to another country that was not Russia, could be delivered and installed in these frigates ... again

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Sep 2015 07:25

a obvious modification is widening the raised deck which houses the SAMs into square shape and putting in more SAMs - perhaps 16 more.

almost all modern DDG have a big square shaped area for missiles in front, not this old model tapering shape.
eg fremm, type45
http://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/ ... /fremm.JPG

the RBUs continue to take up gigantic amt of precious foredeck space, space that could mount 2 x 76mm AA oto guns or more missile.
someone has to bell the cat and house them on the sides.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2015 09:14

or move to a VLS system for RBU.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2015 11:57

The Space that RBU takes also includes the below deck reserves for reload capability ,Rockets and machinery etc to reload it , The RBU is now made by L&T

http://www.larsentoubro.com/heavy-engin ... stems-asw/

A VLS capability is good but it would limit the amount of ASW rocket it can carry and it cant reload it , also the flexibility to fire across more 180 * arc of ship as its short range weapon

The 90R projectile also as last ditch Anti-Torpedo capability

http://www.splav.org/en/arms/rpk/missiles.asp

Looking at the angle it is firing from INS Tarkash it certainly can do 200-230 degree while firing the rocket

parikh · Post by **parikh** » 26 Sep 2015 12:36

Does the INS Kochi / Kolkatta have reloads for Brahmos after it fires its 16 missiles. Or does the support ship carry reloads and can transfer it at sea.

16 sounds too less a number for a deployment to for e.g Syria or Middle East to help pound IS positions. Fire all 16 and come back all the way to reload.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Sep 2015 12:45

^^ even if we do decide to attack IS (I dont see why) we would hardly use brahmos for that job.

Austin, at the very least get it under a RCS optimised shroud.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Sep 2015 14:49

Rahul M wrote:or move to a VLS system for RBU.

RBU launches relatively cheap, unguided munitions. Any VLS system will require smart missiles.

Our best bet is to retain the system with attendant downsides viz-a-viz weight and deck space. However, some variants may be built without it, say P-28 ASuW with Brahmos VLS instead of RBU/IRL. On P-15 and P-17 Shivaliks we could place one RBU in place of the cannon and install 2 cannons in liu.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Sep 2015 15:14

A good idea. One big rbu in front with more reloads and two x 76mm oto srgm like Italy horizon ships. This will beef up anti missile ability

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2015 15:37

Aditya G wrote:RBU launches relatively cheap, unguided munitions. Any VLS system will require smart missiles.

The 90R missile there has a hydroacoustic guidance that lets it home to the target but it does not have a propulsion its driven by gravity.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Sep 2015 16:44

I think they are all unguided rockets that depend on the launcher angle to reach the splashdown point - like a BM21 grad rocket. I do not think they have solid rocket throttleable motor, manouvering fins or datalink back to the ship. that would make it the far more expensive Klub ASW missile.

the basic ASROC missile that was once used on 200 ships worldwide is the same as RBU but a heavier weapon capable of dropping off a LWT. but then a VL-ASROC was developed for mk41 system that added some ability to shape the trajectory. it has a big range of 22km. even the basic ASROC was 19km

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5_ASROC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139_VL-ASROC

I think vl-asroc is the way we need to go for RBU-future...extend its range and deploy a LWT than a dumb depth charge.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Sep 2015 16:50

i do not think the rus navy has deployed the klub 91RE1 ASW missile at all....it remained in proto stage.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 26 Sep 2015 21:36

Austin wrote:
Aditya G wrote:RBU launches relatively cheap, unguided munitions. Any VLS system will require smart missiles.
The 90R missile there has a hydroacoustic guidance that lets it home to the target but it does not have a propulsion its driven by gravity.

Like Singha said, the missile is basically a rocket without any maneuvering capability. What you describe is basically a 'fuse'.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Sep 2015 17:44

The RBUs can also fire anti-missile decoys,say some reports.Useful eqpt.,ususally placed ahead of the main gun at the bows in some Soviet vessels. If the same detail is adopted with a single launcher on some future designs,it would release more space behind the main gun for both silos for BMos and LR SAMs. This would however require a higher freeboard .If you look at the Kashins/Rajputs,the bows are low and the RBU's mounted after the SA-N-1 launcher.

New postings.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/san ... 02184.html

Sanjay Mahindru new Flag Officer Submarines of Navy
Last Updated: Friday, September 25, 2015 - 19:41

New Delhi: Rear Admiral Sanjay Mahindru on Friday took charge as the Flag Officer Submarines as the Navy carried out senior level changes in its ranks.

Rear Admiral Ravneet Singh has been appointed as Flag Officer Commanding Western Naval Fleet. He was the Flag Officer Naval Aviation and Flag Officer Goa Area.

Rear Admiral SV Bokhare, who was the Flag Officer Submarines, has been made the Flag Officer Commanding Eastern Fleet.

Rear Admiral Mahindru was commissioned on January 1, 1985, and has served 27 years in the Submarine Arm.

He has commanded a conventional submarine, frigate and a destroyer prior assuming Command of nuclear submarine Arihant, which is currently going through trials.

Whilst serving ashore, the officer commanded the Navy's Submarine Training Establishment and been a Director at Naval Headquarters.

He is an alumnus of prestigious College of Naval Warfare and has also completed the Staff Course in the United Kingdom.

In other appointments, Rear Admiral Hari Kumar has been appointed as the Chief of Staff Headquarters at Western Naval Command.

Rear Admiral SN Ghoirmade as been appointed as Flag Officer commanding Maharashtra Area while Rear Admiral Nadkarni has been appointed as Flag Officer commanding Karwar.

Rear Admiral MS Pawar has been appointed as Flag Officer Commanding Gujarat Naval Area, a newly created billet.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 27 Sep 2015 17:49

The chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning is in Tartus port per reports. It must have crossed the Indian ocean/Red sea to make it to Syria. Did the Navy track it as it crossed the Indian ocean?

If true it is the first overseas deployment for the chinese AC. The Indian navy would do well to watch the developments closely and prepare for upping the ante if required.

http://debka.com/article/24909/A-Chines ... y-buildup-

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Chinese aircraft carrier passed through the Suez Canal on Sept. 22,

So it crossed the Indian ocean, a shot across India's bow! Hope someone is paying attention.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Sep 2015 19:27

Is the report accurate? No one else has reported it,a major development. The report says that the aircraft are not aboard,will be flown in from China through Iran or in Ru transports.Sounds v.funny.Who is going to assemble the Liao's aircraft aircraft in Syria of all places!

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /72730048/

India Seeks Global Tranfer of Technology To Build MCMV
By Vivek Raghuvanshi 12:26 p.m. EDT September 26, 2015

NEW DELHI — India's Goa Shipyard Ltd. (GSL) is looking for international companies with the technology the state-owned company needs to build 12 mine countermeasures vessels (MCMVs) for the Indian Navy.

GSL, which was awarded the $5 billion noncompetitive contract in 2014, has floated a global expression of interest (EOI) from companies willing to transfer the technology to build the vessels to the Indian shipyard.

Such a move could push the cost of building the ships in India higher compared with those built overseas, analysts here said, but the absorption of the technology would, in the long run, allow India to build more MCMVs.

A GSL executive said the company hopes for a good response to get the technology it needs from overseas. The EOI was sent to South Korea's Kangnam, Italy's Intermarine, Spain's Navantia, US-based Lockheed Martin, Germany's Thyssenkrupp and two Russian shipyards, he said.

GSL will short-list foreign shipyards with capability for design and construction of a single-skin, non-stiffened structure for the MCMV. A formal tender to the short-listed companies will follow, the GSL executive said.

The value of the transfer of technology contract is more than $1 billion, or about 20 percent of the total value of the contract, an Indian Navy official said.

Last year, the Ministry of Defense canceled a 2008 global tender in which Kangnam had emerged as the winner because of the South Korean company's alleged use of defense agents in pursuing the deal, which overseas defense companies are not allowed to do under Indian law.

Kangnam, however, appears to be staging a re-entry for the new technology transfer contract, analysts said.

"Kangnam have already invested time and effort and would be ready with the details," said Shyam Kumar Singh, a retired Indian navy captain. "As far as Intermarine of Italy is concerned, they have to compete with Kangnam, which is already ahead."

While the MCMV acquisition is delayed due to cancellation of the original tender and the GSL contract award, analysts say the absorption of technology would help in building more vessels in the future.

"Minesweepers or mine countermeasure vessels are very sophisticated technology products," said Sujeet Samaddar, a retired Indian Navy commodore. "Including hull material, acoustic and magnetic reduced signatures, mine-hunting sonars and remotely piloted vehicles, and also the design methodology are not easy. That said, it is not undoable in India, but that is like reinventing the wheel."

Anil Jai Singh, a retired Indian Navy commodore, said building the MCMV may not be exceedingly expensive. "More important will be the development of an indigenous capability to build a specialized vessel," he said. "On the choice of hull, the Navy must have taken an informed decision."

The Navy wants 800- to 1,000-ton vessels with composite anti-magnetic hulls that can clear sea mines laid by enemy warships, submarines and aircraft to blockade harbors during war, the Navy official said, and will aquire 24 such vessels over the next decade. The construction of the first vessel is expected to begin in April 2018, with deliveries to be completed between April 2021 and April 2026.

Currently the Indian Navy operates six to seven Soviet-built minesweepers bought in the late 1970s

India would be building an MCMV for the first time in a state-owned shipyard that was awarded the contract without competition, or through nomination, Samaddar said, noting that "nomination is always a bad idea, and the MoD has repeatedly said it will not nominate but continues to do so."

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Sep 2015 05:01

Paul wrote:The chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning is in Tartus port per reports. It must have crossed the Indian ocean/Red sea to make it to Syria. Did the Navy track it as it crossed the Indian ocean?

If true it is the first overseas deployment for the chinese AC. The Indian navy would do well to watch the developments closely and prepare for upping the ante if required.

http://debka.com/article/24909/A-Chines ... y-buildup-

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Chinese aircraft carrier passed through the Suez Canal on Sept. 22,
So it crossed the Indian ocean, a shot across India's bow! Hope someone is paying attention.

This sounds like a load of bollocks to me. The purpose of a carrier is to have a mobile seaborne air base. That carrier would normally move around in a battle group that protect each other from attack. No carrier groups cross the Indian Ocean - maybe a lone empty carrier did. If it is going to sit near Syria and then have planes loaded who will supply the fuel, the munitions and the support for them in Syria with no support ships? And what sort of protection would this carrier have from interested parties?

In any case this is the wrong thread to discuss this

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Sep 2015 05:47

Absolute rubbish!! China can't even deploy their carrier in SCS for a month how will they deploy it in Mediterranean? This report mentions a type 071 LHD.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog ... uver-syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_071_ ... sport_dock

They could send in some weapons or troops to help the SAA.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Sep 2015 05:48

I think this is another kite-flying exercise by Manu Pubby:

India may get US, French cos as partners for building nuclear submarines

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Sep 2015 05:56

India already has Russian help. Nuke subs are not made by mixing and matching. I agree it seems like fishing exercise.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 07:23

the chinese ship is most probably a transport ship or LHD.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Sep 2015 09:36

Long overdue. Like I've said before, India is going to gets its nuke attack subs one way or the other. All their reticence did so far is let the Russians walk away with a fair bit of business. That said, I expected their overtures to come from UK and France. Astute v Barracuda. Surprised to see US joining the party. I wouldn't be surprised if the Euros submit a much stronger proposal.

India may get US, French cos as partners for building nuclear submarines

NEW DELHI: For the first time India has options when it comes to finding a partner to build a military nuclear asset. Besides Russia, ship builders from France and the US have started initial conversations with the defence ministry on participating in an Indian effort to build a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Russia has been the traditional ally of India when it comes to sensitive technology and strategic systems.

But a Navy plan for constructing six new nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to patrol the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond has prompted 'discussions' with the two western nations, sources familiar with the development told ET. The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared Navy's proposal in February.

The Indian SSN project — expected to cost over Rs 1 lakh crore — is an ambitious plan to design and produce a nuclear attack boat with the help of the private sector. If this materialises, it will propel India into a select league of the five nuclear powers that have such a capability. SSNs are nuclear powered submarines, but do not carry nuclear warheads, relying instead on conventional weapons and stealth to hunt ships and other submarines. The last country to enter this club was China in 1974 with its Han class boats.

Sources told ET that senior representatives from the submarine branch of a leading US conglomerate have met key Indian defence ministry officials regarding the project. The efforts included a top level meeting in July. The discussions have been kept low key given the sensitivity of the project and details are not available.

Similarly, French representatives have also approached the Indian side for exploring avenues for cooperation on the project in the past few months. While the French submarine manufacturer has not commented on the project, the Indian side is interested in the new 'Barracuda' SSN being developed by French ship builder DCNS. A senior DCNS representative refused to take questions on the matter.

The new nuclear submarine for the French Navy is currently under construction and is expected to start sea trials by next year. The Barracuda was also showcased at the Defence Expo held in New Delhi last year. As reported by ET, India is also in talks with Russia to lease a nuclear attack submarine — a newly built, customised boat that could give engineers a first-hand look at construction technology and process.

Unlike a nuclear missile armed submarines (SSBN) that is designed to carry out a nuclear strike, nuclear propelled attack boats (SSNs) are considered less sensitive, with their primary role being hunting vital enemy naval ships and submarines. While foreign assistance on SSBNs is a complex matter, there have been examples of nations sharing non-nuclear technology for SSNs. France is at present assisting Brazil with its first nuclear submarine project. The deal involves France helping Brazil with the non-nuclear components of the submarine, with the South American nation using its own reactor and fuel.

India's first SSBN, the INS Arihant, is currently undergoing sea trials in Vizag. It is expected to carry out a weapons test shortly. The only SSN in service with the Navy at present is the INS Chakra, an Akula class submarine on a 10 year lease from Russia to train Indian crew for such operations.

Economic Times

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2015 10:23

It would be a maintenance/support nightmare,to operate two diff. types of reactor designs,components,etc.The entire ATV SSBN fleet is based upon our local manufacture of an N-reactor based upon Russian design/assistance. For commonality's sake,the SSNs/SSGNs should also be offshoots of the ATV/SSBN programme,drawing upon that experience and developing our indigenous skills further.It would make design,construction and operating these subs far easier.Until the Scorpenes hit the water and are in service for some time,it would be prudent to wait for a few years of experience before thinking about a Barracuda/N-version of a stretched Scorpene.

The IN's sub fleet's major cutting edge weaponry also is of Russian origin.BMos,Klub,Shkval,etc,of which the West has no equivalent.Neither the new Scorpenes or U-boats upgraded will have a sub-launched anti-ship/land attack missile the equiv. of Klub ,let alone BMos. Furthermore,the acquisition of a French/US N-plant for subs will require an enormous amt. of safeguard issues which will take aeons to negotiate and resolve. With Russia,there is far less resistance,in fact there is pro-active policy as far as India is concerned,remember they first offered us an N-sub way back in the '80s. If the second Akula has some Yasen class tech/features,it would bring the IN's sub fleet capability upto that of the two major superpowers.

soumik · Post by **soumik** » 28 Sep 2015 15:17

Viv S wrote:Long overdue. Like I've said before, India is going to gets its nuke attack subs one way or the other. All their reticence did so far is let the Russians walk away with a fair bit of business. That said, I expected their overtures to come from UK and France. Astute v Barracuda. Surprised to see US joining the party. I wouldn't be surprised if the Euros submit a much stronger proposal.

India may get US, French cos as partners for building nuclear submarines

NEW DELHI: For the first time India has options when it comes to finding a partner to build a military nuclear asset. Besides Russia, ship builders from France and the US have started initial conversations with the defence ministry on participating in an Indian effort to build a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Russia has been the traditional ally of India when it comes to sensitive technology and strategic systems.

But a Navy plan for constructing six new nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to patrol the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond has prompted 'discussions' with the two western nations, sources familiar with the development told ET. The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared Navy's proposal in February.

The Indian SSN project — expected to cost over Rs 1 lakh crore — is an ambitious plan to design and produce a nuclear attack boat with the help of the private sector. If this materialises, it will propel India into a select league of the five nuclear powers that have such a capability. SSNs are nuclear powered submarines, but do not carry nuclear warheads, relying instead on conventional weapons and stealth to hunt ships and other submarines. The last country to enter this club was China in 1974 with its Han class boats.

Sources told ET that senior representatives from the submarine branch of a leading US conglomerate have met key Indian defence ministry officials regarding the project. The efforts included a top level meeting in July. The discussions have been kept low key given the sensitivity of the project and details are not available.

Similarly, French representatives have also approached the Indian side for exploring avenues for cooperation on the project in the past few months. While the French submarine manufacturer has not commented on the project, the Indian side is interested in the new 'Barracuda' SSN being developed by French ship builder DCNS. A senior DCNS representative refused to take questions on the matter.

The new nuclear submarine for the French Navy is currently under construction and is expected to start sea trials by next year. The Barracuda was also showcased at the Defence Expo held in New Delhi last year. As reported by ET, India is also in talks with Russia to lease a nuclear attack submarine — a newly built, customised boat that could give engineers a first-hand look at construction technology and process.

Unlike a nuclear missile armed submarines (SSBN) that is designed to carry out a nuclear strike, nuclear propelled attack boats (SSNs) are considered less sensitive, with their primary role being hunting vital enemy naval ships and submarines. While foreign assistance on SSBNs is a complex matter, there have been examples of nations sharing non-nuclear technology for SSNs. France is at present assisting Brazil with its first nuclear submarine project. The deal involves France helping Brazil with the non-nuclear components of the submarine, with the South American nation using its own reactor and fuel.

India's first SSBN, the INS Arihant, is currently undergoing sea trials in Vizag. It is expected to carry out a weapons test shortly. The only SSN in service with the Navy at present is the INS Chakra, an Akula class submarine on a 10 year lease from Russia to train Indian crew for such operations.

Economic Times

Great news!
My speculation in the Rafale thread about the high cost of Rafale being used to hide SSN tech transfer may have some truth in it after all.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 17:12

one data point - france had a deal with brazil to help them build their first SSN.,but providing non nuclear parts only
I am not sure how much its for reality though.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bra ... ssn-05217/

Brazil’s MDD initally saw the nuclear-powered submarine as a far larger boat, at 6,000t compared to the diesel-electric boats’ 1,400-1,800 tonnes. By 2013, a Marinha do Brazil tech center submarine design that used Brazil’s 2131-R Pressurized Water Reactor was expected to weigh in at 4,000t submerged. The model showed the 2131-R reactor positioned amidships, with 8 torpedo tubes at the front. Printed literature showed a 2nd design that traded 6 vertical launch tubes for 6 of the torpedo tubes.

Even 4,000t is significantly larger than France’s existing SSN Rubis Amethyste class fast attack boats, which weigh in at around 2,730t submerged. Some of this can be accounted for by the need for more space, in order to accommodate larger early-stage nuclear propulsion systems. Even so, the famous USS Nautilus managed to displace only 3,500 tons. Since nuclear weapons are specifically prohibited by Brazil’s current constitution, however, a large SSN fast attack vessel is almost certainly the goal. A 4,000t vessel would fit somewhere between the Rubis Amethyte boats, and France’s new 5,300t SSN Barracuda class

Construction of Brazil’s nuclear boat is expected to begin in 2015, and it’s expected to enter service in 2021. Cost for the submarine is pegged at about EUR 2 billion, with EUR 1.25 billion assigned to Brazil’s indigenous Project Aramar nuclear propulsion/ power program. DCNS’ role involves assistance with hull technology and construction, and with non-nuclear internal technologies.

Finally, Brazil aims to set up improved naval construction facilities and a base capable of handling nuclear submarines at Itaguai, a port just south of Rio. Brazil’s U209 submarines are currently based out of Rio de Janeiro, but that densely populated city offers too many technical and environmental issues to host nuclear-powered submarines. These construction projects are expected to cost EUR 1.868 billion (6.9 billion Reals). The nuclear submarine base will be built by the Sociedade de Proposito Especifico, or SPE consortium, which includes Brazil’s Odebrecht (50%), France’s DCNS (49%) and the Brazilian Navy (1% “golden share,” with veto power).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Sep 2015 18:34

soumik wrote:
Great news!
My speculation in the Rafale thread about the high cost of Rafale being used to hide SSN tech transfer may have some truth in it after all.

To me it sounds really stupid to pay extra for one item for simply getting a "promise" that something will come later. Especially a nuke submarine - it sounds like pure snake oil to me if true, although I don't believe that is the case.

After all we have actually already built a nuke sub by hook or by crook. We don't really need the French there. We do however need jet engines as in the French "Snecma". if someone said we are paying extra to get hands on experience in jet engine I would be happier. This nuke sub speculation would make me depressed but in any case I don't believe the current GoI will be stupid enough to pay up front for a promise that can be withdrawn.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 28 Sep 2015 19:25

shiv, there are lot of non-nuclear sub-systems where Franch and US can help with the latest tech and automation tools.

How about starting with those optronic scopes?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Sep 2015 19:36

JTull wrote:shiv, there are lot of non-nuclear sub-systems where Franch and US can help with the latest tech and automation tools.

How about starting with those optronic scopes?

What you say is probably an incontrovertible fact. What I think is totally wrong is the idea that we pay extra for Rafale for a "promise of technology" for nuclear submarines. To me this is a mixing up of issues and trying to explain away the cost of Rafale by cooking up hopeful excuses without knowing what we are getting with the Rafale deal.

India may well want to get some technology for nuke subs including optronic scopes whatever that might be, but I cannot see any reason why a request for such technology would be paid for under Rafale burqa. If something has to remain hush hush it can be made so without cooking up unlikely stories of "How India paid for nuclear technology while pretending to pay for Rafale". I think that is far fetched and absurd. That is the sort of story we can expect to hear from the Paki press in future - ie how any technology that India has was paid for in some other deal

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Sep 2015 20:32

Viv S wrote:Long overdue. Like I've said before, India is going to gets its nuke attack subs one way or the other. All their reticence did so far is let the Russians walk away with a fair bit of business. That said, I expected their overtures to come from UK and France. Astute v Barracuda. Surprised to see US joining the party. I wouldn't be surprised if the Euros submit a much stronger proposal.

India may get US, French cos as partners for building nuclear submarines

NEW DELHI: For the first time India has options when it comes to finding a partner to build a military nuclear asset. Besides Russia, ship builders from France and the US have started initial conversations with the defence ministry on participating in an Indian effort to build a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Russia has been the traditional ally of India when it comes to sensitive technology and strategic systems.

But a Navy plan for constructing six new nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to patrol the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond has prompted 'discussions' with the two western nations, sources familiar with the development told ET. The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared Navy's proposal in February.

The Indian SSN project — expected to cost over Rs 1 lakh crore — is an ambitious plan to design and produce a nuclear attack boat with the help of the private sector. If this materialises, it will propel India into a select league of the five nuclear powers that have such a capability. SSNs are nuclear powered submarines, but do not carry nuclear warheads, relying instead on conventional weapons and stealth to hunt ships and other submarines. The last country to enter this club was China in 1974 with its Han class boats.

Sources told ET that senior representatives from the submarine branch of a leading US conglomerate have met key Indian defence ministry officials regarding the project. The efforts included a top level meeting in July. The discussions have been kept low key given the sensitivity of the project and details are not available.

Similarly, French representatives have also approached the Indian side for exploring avenues for cooperation on the project in the past few months. While the French submarine manufacturer has not commented on the project, the Indian side is interested in the new 'Barracuda' SSN being developed by French ship builder DCNS. A senior DCNS representative refused to take questions on the matter.

The new nuclear submarine for the French Navy is currently under construction and is expected to start sea trials by next year. The Barracuda was also showcased at the Defence Expo held in New Delhi last year. As reported by ET, India is also in talks with Russia to lease a nuclear attack submarine — a newly built, customised boat that could give engineers a first-hand look at construction technology and process.

Unlike a nuclear missile armed submarines (SSBN) that is designed to carry out a nuclear strike, nuclear propelled attack boats (SSNs) are considered less sensitive, with their primary role being hunting vital enemy naval ships and submarines. While foreign assistance on SSBNs is a complex matter, there have been examples of nations sharing non-nuclear technology for SSNs. France is at present assisting Brazil with its first nuclear submarine project. The deal involves France helping Brazil with the non-nuclear components of the submarine, with the South American nation using its own reactor and fuel.

India's first SSBN, the INS Arihant, is currently undergoing sea trials in Vizag. It is expected to carry out a weapons test shortly. The only SSN in service with the Navy at present is the INS Chakra, an Akula class submarine on a 10 year lease from Russia to train Indian crew for such operations.

Economic Times

Great news!
My speculation in the Rafale thread about the high cost of Rafale being used to hide SSN tech transfer may have some truth in it after all.[/quote]

could very well be a joke .. but on the other hand needs a paradigm shift in strategic relationship between india and the west for anything of this sort to happen. if something looks too good to be true then it probably isnt ! ..most likely factor judging by the news of russia supplying Su 35 to PK being one ..it seems like quite a bit is going on under the radar that some people are just trying to get a grip on ! ..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2015 23:30

Inside India's New and Deadliest Warship - Written by Vishnu Som

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/inside-i ... eststories

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 29 Sep 2015 04:30

Video: दुश्मन के रडार को चकमा देने वाला युद्धपोत कोच्ची स्टील्थ जल्द होगा नौसेना में शामिल (Navy to commission new stealth destroyer INS Kochi which can escape from enemy's radar)

Quite informative video.

-Ankit

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Sep 2015 10:20

soumik wrote:Great news!
My speculation in the Rafale thread about the high cost of Rafale being used to hide SSN tech transfer may have some truth in it after all.

There's nothing hidden about the SSN negotiations with US/France etc. And if they wanted to bury some transactions, they wouldn't have done it in a high profile purchase like the Rafale. Can anyone say, for example, what the ATV (Arihant) development costed? Or what it should ideally have costed?

The 'hidden' aspect is just wishful thinking to explain the Rafale's staggeringly high cost.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Sep 2015 10:34

Austin wrote:Inside India's New and Deadliest Warship - Written by Vishnu Som

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/inside-i ... eststories

good writeup by VSom. one question. in the story he mentions both the fore and aft VLS as having 16 + 16 barak8 = 32.
and indeed I can count 16 silos in the video. but the doors look HUGE (granit silo size) and even bigger than the brahmos silos shown a few seconds later....the barak8 is a fairly slim missile. I wonder why the door is huge but the hole inside small.

64 Barak8 would have been icing on the cake as we will have only few of these precious ships for task force AAW bubble.

in any case they should add some 16 barak1 atleast to supplement the ak630 for terminal AD

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Sep 2015 10:40

I suspect the barak8 is a big beefy missile (note the increase in range announced from 70 to 90km) and every bit as brawny as the SM2. it will likely be loaded in sealed individual cansisters into the VLS as done for the mk41.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2015 11:10

Singha,the diameter appears to be the same as B-1,but the length has been increased.That's what it looked like at the airshow.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Sep 2015 17:30

For size comparison of Barak-8:

Other images:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... jjiles.jpg

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

http://defencetalk.net/attachments/17-jpg.8191/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Sep 2015 17:36

i am thinking they have increased the 1st stage booster fatness or length to really use the full length of the VL cell and get the increase in range. with china developing multiple families of supersonic ASM and a huge fleet of naval strike platforms, the farther out you can engage the better. thats why USN going for the 150km range SM6 with its amraam based 2nd stage....its is 21 feet long, 1.5 tons, 21" diameter. barak8 is a lot slimmer around 8" and about same length.

we too need a bigger missile than Barak8 to range out to 150km.