Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2012 08:56

I hope they up the number of Barak8 to 36 or 48 atleast on P17A. the foredeck looks big enough for it...and the CG VLS block looks too small. the volume occupied by the 24 missile Shtil unit might be same needed for 36 or 48.

that way they can supplement the 3 P15A ships in area air defence role.

John · Post by **John** » 03 Jul 2012 18:36

negi wrote:Yes it is primarily a point defence weapon against incoming torpedoes and enemy submarines in near vicinity. Both Shivalik and Talwar class however are equipped with RPK-8 system which is latest in the family of RBU-6000 system and capable of firing 90R projectile which has homing capability.

If need be it can also be used against other surface vessels or even bombarding land based targets.

Singha, I suspect P-17A will end up carrying scaled down variant of EL/M 2248?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2012 20:12

there is no need to scale it down. power should not be a problem on a ship this large and the mainmast could be as big as the P15A class. the weight of radar is said to be 1.5t per face for a total of 6t. P17A is a much bigger ship than a IDF corvette which might take a scaled down version.

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/4/36844.pdf

the P15A class ship is 50cm wider beam than the P17 per wiki. so that shouldnt be a issue...infact like the Type45 we should raise the mast even higher. both the radars on type45 are the highest I ever seen in a DDG...the SAMPSON is like 5m higher than a P15A ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ring-1.jpg

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 03 Jul 2012 21:27

INS Sindhurakshak report in Russian. Clear footage of its propeller blades

http://t.co/HzfrDrOK

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 03 Jul 2012 23:03

chinese hack of Indian navy computers was for submarine information as per yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology- ... 52900.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2012 23:23

I just hope we haven't lost any information on our Nuclear Submarine program , IN took extraordinary measures to protect the ATV program spanning decades and hope fully we don't loose precious information due to careless use of pen drive.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2012 23:29

Hiten wrote:INS Sindhurakshak report in Russian. Clear footage of its propeller blades

http://t.co/HzfrDrOK

FIne video wished they had shown some glimpse of the newer command and control room on this modernised Kilo

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 04 Jul 2012 02:55

Mazagon Dock may split order among 4

The need to hasten implementation and avoid any further confrontation with other shipbuilding companies may see Mazagon Dock, India’s largest defence shipyard, split its ambitious Rs 1-lakh-crore naval order book among four major Indian private shipbuilders. After Pipapav Defence, Mazagon is considering similar joint ventures with L&T, ABG Shipyard and Bharati Shipyard, say people in the know.

Pipavav and Mazagon have already agreed on collaboration, but the agreement between the two does not have any exclusivity clause. “Pipavav is the preferred partner, but Mazagon may also explore roping in others, considering the strategic nature of national security,” said a senior official from one of these shipbuilding companies, on condition of anonymity.
So far, however, no written communication has been issued to this effect.

Last year, Mazagon had invited private shipbuilders to partner it in executing the mega warship orders, already delayed by seven-eight years. It had Mazagon had shortlisted four of the eight companies interested, before choosing Pipavav as the partner. The three companies that lost out complained to the defence ministry, alleging opaqueness in Pipavav’s selection. The ministry put the joint venture on hold, saying fresh guidelines would be issued in this regard. However, in May, the ministry gave its approval to the Pipavav-Mazagon joint venture.

However, considering the enormity of the contract, it may be difficult for just one vendor, Pipavav, to carry out the Navy warships projects of Rs 1 lakh crore. Therefore, Mazagon Dock is considering forming joint ventures with each of the four companies approved by the ministry to carry out the defence orders and expressions of interest for these would be invited soon. A Mazagon Dock official, on condition of anonymity, told Business Standard, “The plan is very fluid at the moment, but details are being worked out.”

Mazagon Dock did not reply to a query sent to it.

The procedure being considered is now possible, after the government had removed the ‘exclusivity’ norm, making such joint ventures open for all government-approved defence shipbuilders—BG Shipyard, Bharati Shipyard, L&T and Pipavav.

An official from one of the shipbuilders said, “This is definitely a good opportunity for us to get a share of this large order. It’s impossible for a joint venture to complete the order in the given timeframe. With multiple ventures and the work being split, the process would gain speed.”

As on March 31, ABG Shipyard had an order book of Rs 16,000 crore, to be executed over three-five years. Pipavav has an order book of about Rs 7,000 crore, while Bharati Shipyard’s order book stands at Rs 6,500 crore. With the Mazagon order book of Rs 1 lakh crore being split between the four companies, the revenue and profitability of these companies would get a boost, albeit over a long period of time.

The Mazagon projects would also help private shipbuilders boost revenue, aiding the shipping sector, which is recording a scarcity in new orders. The ministry’s nod to the Mazagon-Pipavav joint venture has also cleared the path for other government-owned defence shipyards like Hindustan Shipyard, Cochin Shipyard and Garden Reach Works in Kolkata to seek similar joint ventures for defence orders. The overall defence order book is estimated at a whopping Rs 1,60,000 crore, to be delivered over four-five years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2012 08:06

a timely move. we have reached a bad point with delays in the shivalik, P15A, P28 programs and cannot afford to suffer the same in further P28, P15B, P75I and P17A progs considering the smooth manner in which PLAN is getting large combatants and auxiliaries.
"build 3 more talwars in yantar" is not a solution, its a thin band-aid over the gaping wound.

we need a constant stream of oilers and supply ships to increase our task force endurance....getting 3 more of the fincantieri ships would be good.

LHDs are much smoke and no fire so far....

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 04 Jul 2012 09:33

Did anybody check the picture in this article http://idrw.org/?p=12555
Is it INS Kolkata???

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2012 10:45

there is another pic that shows 3 ships in various stages of fitting out. the center ship (most done) is the INS kolkata.

the problem is barak8 is delayed though MFSTAR is ready. these ships being purpose built with masts to accomodate the missile , there is no chance of fielding them without these kit.
word on street was Israelis shifted resources to other projects like iron dome and are going slow on barak8.
this release says full fledged test pgm was to start in Jan/Feb 2012
http://defense-update.com/20111130_new- ... -test.html
http://defense-update.com/20111121_bara ... -2012.html

hence the P15A induction is delayed. does anyone know of schedules?

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 04 Jul 2012 10:56

^^ can you tell which picture are you talking where there are 3 ships??

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 04 Jul 2012 12:03

Singha wrote: hence the P15A induction is delayed. does anyone know of schedules?

Singha, there was a poster in DEFEXPO stating that INS Kolkata will be commissioned September 2012, the rest in 2013 and 2014. We have to wait and see if this schedule holds!

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 04 Jul 2012 12:07

mayankdr wrote:^^ can you tell which picture are you talking where there are 3 ships??

Here:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/08/w ... -what.html

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 04 Jul 2012 12:34

Singha wrote:a timely move. we have reached a bad point with delays in the shivalik, P15A, P28 programs and cannot afford to suffer the same in further P28, P15B, P75I and P17A progs considering the smooth manner in which PLAN is getting large combatants and auxiliaries.
"build 3 more talwars in yantar" is not a solution, its a thin band-aid over the gaping wound.

we need a constant stream of oilers and supply ships to increase our task force endurance....getting 3 more of the fincantieri ships would be good.

LHDs are much smoke and no fire so far....

How can they share the work with 4 Shipyards?

Outsourcing of Subsystems or fabrication of few blocks?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 04 Jul 2012 12:57

There were unofficial reports of delivery of the first MF-STAR to India in late 2010/early 2011. Since then no official information has surfaced. What I don't get is how do you test the performance of the radar without the missile intended to work with it. It's like delivering Sea Viper with Sampson only and saying that we'll get the Asters tested in next 5 years.

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 04 Jul 2012 14:14

SNaik wrote:There were unofficial reports of delivery of the first MF-STAR to India in late 2010/early 2011. Since then no official information has surfaced. What I don't get is how do you test the performance of the radar without the missile intended to work with it. It's like delivering Sea Viper with Sampson only and saying that we'll get the Asters tested in next 5 years.

This was done in 2010-11.

Fabrication and erection of Antenna Room Structure for housing the MF-STAR
antenna for Kolkata Class Ships. The activity was carried out first time in the
country and had to adhere to stringent fabrication and mounting tolerances
stipulated by M/s. Israel Aircraft Industries.

http://www.mazagondock.gov.in/newsite20 ... 010-11.pdf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jul 2012 14:16

So they have fabricated the structure for MF-STAR but the actual integration of the radar status is not know.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2012 15:09

well the photo itself clearly shows the ships have the radar housing installed. imo they can launch the ship, and enter into trials with the radar but without the barak8 VLS.
this will permit everything in the ship to be tested out over the 1 yr trial period including barak1/AK630, brahmos, Oto gun, C4I systems, decoys, helicopters, ASW, heavy sea handling....use ballast in the barak8 vls of equivalent weight. being lead ship of a new class, sooner the issues are discovered, its siblings will benefit dockside.

the surveillance , anti-jamming , AESA modes and tracking features of MFSTAR can also be tested against 100s of airborne targets homing into Mumbai airport plus IAF a.c.

when the Barak8 comes fit it in and test at sea. there is no point in delaying the launch for barak8 when so many things can be tested without waiting. VLS installation can done dockside without hull cutting and indeed thats the whole idea of VLS module for modular "drop in" fitment.

John · Post by **John** » 04 Jul 2012 19:56

Singha wrote:there is no need to scale it down. power should not be a problem on a ship this large and the mainmast could be as big as the P15A class. the weight of radar is said to be 1.5t per face for a total of 6t. P17A is a much bigger ship than a IDF corvette which might take a scaled down version.

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/4/36844.pdf

the P15A class ship is 50cm wider beam than the P17 per wiki. so that shouldnt be a issue...infact like the Type45 we should raise the mast even higher. both the radars on type45 are the highest I ever seen in a DDG...the SAMPSON is like 5m higher than a P15A ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ring-1.jpg

It is not just the weight it also comes down to power requirements and of course cost we seen that French who have gone with Herakles + A15 over EMPAR for FREMM. It doesn't make sense to fit top of line air defense equipment on all vessels when Barak-8 does have network centric capabilities and for example P-15A would provide target information for Barak-8 fired by P-17A.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jul 2012 21:18

given our small number of combatants with MFSTAR and Barak8 (only the 3 P15A class in near future), its quite important that P17A ships also have the full kit and kitchen sink. in cost and capability they are principal combatants for us.

what I dont understand is this - the Type45 Daring class and the Soko KDX3 destroyer are about the same size at 160m x 21m x 8500t.
Type45 has the better radar kit in S1850 + SAMPSON and electric drive propulsion, all very chi chi and tfta.
yet it carries just 48 missiles , no LACM capability, minimal ciws, no ASM (!), 2 SeaLynx helis

the KDX3 trounces it with RAM CIWS, 16 ASM, 80 SAMs, 32 LACM, 16 ASROC, 2 x 3TT , 2 SH60 helis ....128 VLS cells + 16 ASMs in tubes...the most heavily armed DDG in gods world.

so wtf did the RN spend couple billion $$ on the Daring class, put in 1st class propulsion and radar systems only to leave it with a weak armament ? and do they have any role for a ship this large ?

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 04 Jul 2012 21:36

Singha wrote: so wtf did the RN spend couple billion $$ on the Daring class, put in 1st class propulsion and radar systems only to leave it with a weak armament ? and do they have any role for a ship this large ?

After, spending top $$ on the ships, the cost escalation has left a severe dent in the ship's capabilities. They can be upgraded later though. Below excerpt:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DDG ... -criticism

Missing From Action

Cost growth on the Type 45 destroyers has whittled away many of the ships’ planned capabilities, as features and items were removed. These capabilities could be added later, but until they are, the Type 45s will be missing key features one would expect in a top-of-the-line modern destroyer, or even in a high-end frigate.

The most obvious gap is anti-ship missiles, and their lack means that the Daring Class will require protection of their own from other ships. Britain’s dwindling frigate strength, and complete lack of maritime patrol aircraft with the retirement of its Nimrods, are going to create limitations in the fleet’s ability to cover all of those bases, and will make its naval groups more brittle in the event of losses.

Another obvious gap involves torpedoes. Type 45s aren’t fitted with torpedo launchers, and their vertical launch cells won’t hold rocket-launched torpedo systems like the USA’s ASROC-VL. The Type 45 is being sold as an advanced anti-submarine platform, which makes this omission rather puzzling. The ships’ only response will involve readying and launching a torpedo-armed helicopter, which may take more time than a ship has in a difficult situation.

The good news is that these may be the easiest gaps to fix. If Britain wishes to sidestep vertical launch requirements, there is some space abaft the PAAMS silos for mounting fixed missile launchers to house anti-ship and/or anti-submarine missiles. Nevertheless, those spaces will be empty when the ships are built and accepted.

Other gaps are less obvious, but equally consequential.

The ships were originally slated to receive Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC). This American system gives fitted ships the ability to see what other CEC-equipped ships, aircraft, or land stations see, and to fire at targets the launching ship’s radars cannot see. It is vital for wide-area anti-air defense, and for ballistic missile defense. Preliminary contracts were issued, but in 2012 the Ministry of Defence decided not to install this relatively inexpensive capability on its ships. The consequence is that the Type 45s will be less effective in their central role of air defense, than ships with less advanced technologies on board, plus CEC.

For other tasks beyond air defense, this ship’s DCNS Sylver A50 launchers are only 5m long, which means they’re not able to carry Scalp (Storm Shadow) vertically-launched land attack cruise missiles, or other strike-length payloads like the SM-3 naval anti-ballistic missile. The 4.5m long VL-ASROC anti-submarine missile/torpedo would fit the A50, but it is designed to work with the Mk 41 vertical launch system and would have to be integrated and tested.

The ships reportedly do have space in front of the 48 cell Sylver A50 system to accommodate another 12-cell launcher, but they will not initially be fitted with one. DCNS’ Sylver A70 is an obvious option, and there is now talk of retrofits involving a BAE/Lockheed Mk.41 strike-length VLS there instead. Either type would give the Daring Class the space to host land-strike missiles, though Britain’s current naval doctrine assigns that role exclusively to its nuclear-powered fast attack submarines. Choosing the Mk.41 would also allow the ships to add SM-3 missiles, if additional upgrades were made to the ship’s datalinks and combat system.

John · Post by **John** » 04 Jul 2012 22:06

Singha Daring is actually smaller than Sejong, 165 m vs ~150 meter length for Daring and Sejong the Great is also 10% larger in terms of displacement . Also Sejong is quoted as having cost around 1.2-1.4 billion /each and in fact it would cost more if hadn't bought off the shelf subsidized Aegis class system coupled with indigenous weapons and armaments but Type 45 acquisition was bit of mess and Royal navy is still struggling to find its identity where as Korean Navy is geared to fight one main opponent, North Korea.

As for P-17A i am bit of skeptic after seeing how Scorpene turned out if i where betting man i would bet on P-15Bs seeing the light of day before P-17As.

mayankdr · Post by **mayankdr** » 05 Jul 2012 04:09

I don't know if somebody have posted this link before.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoft ... olkata.htm

Enjoy!!

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jul 2012 07:20

Singha wrote: so wtf did the RN spend couple billion $$ on the Daring class, put in 1st class propulsion and radar systems only to leave it with a weak armament ? and do they have any role for a ship this large?

To understand RN's tactics / design philosophy, IMO one has to look at the Falklands war. In that war, Type-42 provided fleet air defense with LR SAMs (Sea Dart) while Type-22/23 provided ASW, AShW and close in air defense (Seawolf). When deployed as air defense picket, a Type-42 was paired with Type-22/23. Type-42 provided air picture and engaged air targets at long ranges. Type-22/23 on the other hand provided anti-submarine coverage along with close air defense.

Now Type-45 will take over the task of Type-42 while Type-26 will take over Type-23's role. These ships will always be working as part of a naval battle group or in Type-45/Type-26 pairs for picket roles. As for the size of Type-45, RN wanted a ship with long-legs and mission flexibility.

As for the exceedingly high costs of Type-45, it's super expensive to build anything in the UK but one that the government is willing to pay for inorder to retain the know-hows through infrastructure, skilled labor, engineers, managers and others. It took many centuries/decades to acquire it and without government commitment to keep it alive UK would lose all of it in no time.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 Jul 2012 08:08

The KDX-III type of armament dense ship makes sense if your deployment area is limited as in the case of So Ko. Their massive load out is hyper expensive, but due to their smaller deployment area, you need only a meager few.

But powers (even fading ones) that like to dabble around in distant parts of globe, they need longer legged ships with reasonable armament to take care of 99% of the normal military eventualities. If that 1% (WWIII) happens, their numbers will ensure that they are more flexible in deploying en-mass than the denser ships, which are easier to track by a WWIII-class enemy alliances.

KDXIII reminds one of a soviet mindset ("um, because we can?"), IMHO

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2012 08:30

but as it stands, the Daring class numbers are cut (down to 6 from planned 12), and Soko is ramping up as a tier1 military power, its likely Soko will end up with more AAW ships than UK -3 x KDX3 and 6 KDX2 modded for Aegis and less cost.
even Japan plans to dedicate its 4 Aegis ships to TBMD and is building a slightly smaller vessel for the AAW role...

UK imo as the tier-2 munna scampering at the heels of a US CVN with its pair of DDG51 ships can provide more with fleet ASW / littoral warfare ships which the US lacks in with the fading out of the Kidd clas, the spruance class and the S3 viking gone.

if the idea is to influence the land battle, they need LACMs. and who is going to provide defence against long range ASMs other than the CVN. for some unknown reason they build a hyper expensive CVF carrier with a straight deck and no cats suitable for the VSTOL JSF only....the French wisely put in a angled deck, Rafale/JSF-CTOL ops on the same design PA2. tsk tsk.

almost seems like they buy a huge flat but have no cash to buy the furniture and do the woodwork properly lol

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 05 Jul 2012 13:09

GD for you....this stuff is very very chi chi onlee.

This is the same variant that utilises the vulcano shells.

Now the reason why INs 76mm Oto gun is call a SRGM (super rapid gun mount)

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 05 Jul 2012 13:19

mayankdr wrote:I don't know if somebody have posted this link before.

http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoft ... olkata.htm

Enjoy!!

So P15B is Begaluru Class?

Hail IT!

What could be the other ones in the class?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2012 13:45

I was looking at the JMSDF ships ... their build rate is astonishing. they move from laid down to commisioned status invariably in 3 or 4 yrs max.
am talking about the big Atago , Kongo, Akizuki class ships not patrol corvettes here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... ense_Force

our P15A lead ship was laid down around 2002, launched in 2006 and is "fitting out" since then for 6 years now

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 05 Jul 2012 14:31

Singha wrote:I was looking at the JMSDF ships ... their build rate is astonishing. they move from laid down to commisioned status invariably in 3 or 4 yrs max.

Japan is the gold standard in ship building/manufacturing and India is quite a way to get near. Also, Japan has to rely a lot on shipping lanes for imports of any kind of goods it needs, for which maritime prowess and safeguarding is vital. Also, they had started really early on the quest churning out a range of naval vessels (including carriers and destroyers) and the biggest ship fighting in world war 2 was a jap one.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 05 Jul 2012 15:59

Actually, US was the gold standard during WWII. They churned out numbers of ships that completely dwarfed both Japan's, Germany's, Britain's, and other countries combined

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jul 2012 17:09

the chinese are catching up as well. their commercial shipbuilding industry is huge and has no doubt absorbed best practices from around the world including Soko and Japan.

we better pull up our panties or get spanked. taking 6 yrs to fit out a ship on a cottage industry basis in the 21st century is not done.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Jul 2012 17:25

Once we move to modular ship building that is assembling ships like lego toys we will churn out faster like in 4 years.

Hopefully we learn such manufacturing process from SoKo , French and then incorporate into our docks and factories.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 05 Jul 2012 17:34

Singha wrote:I was looking at the JMSDF ships ... their build rate is astonishing. they move from laid down to commisioned status invariably in 3 or 4 yrs max.
am talking about the big Atago , Kongo, Akizuki class ships not patrol corvettes here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... ense_Force

our P15A lead ship was laid down around 2002, launched in 2006 and is "fitting out" since then for 6 years now

Isn't fitting out will be driven by availability of weapons stack also? not discounting the obvious delays on our part...

mody · Post by **mody** » 05 Jul 2012 18:25

There was a recent news about selection of Torpedoes for the scorpene subs. The choice was given between German torpedoes and Italian ones. The torpedoes required are Heavy wire guided type along with maybe heavy wake homing as well.

I was wondering why the Indian Thakshak and the new Varunastra torpedoes can't be used for these subs?
Are very using any of our Indegenous torpedoes with our Kilo and Type 209 subs?
We are using the TAL and Thakshak torpedoes form surface vessels.

Thanks

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 05 Jul 2012 20:02

Wiki shows Kamorta's Commissioning in August 2012.

John · Post by **John** » 05 Jul 2012 21:09

srai wrote:
As for the exceedingly high costs of Type-45, it's super expensive to build anything in the UK but one that the government is willing to pay for inorder to retain the know-hows through infrastructure, skilled labor, engineers, managers and others. It took many centuries/decades to acquire it and without government commitment to keep it alive UK would lose all of it in no time.

Well in case of Type 45 most of expense is primarily due to electronics (SAMPSON is quoted at around 40 million pounds), and even the Aegis system alone costs in upwards of 1.2 billion for KDXIII. Even in our end in all likelyhood P-15A will easily be over billion dollars each when they are finally commissioned.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 06 Jul 2012 03:11

Does this link belong here?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 697220.cms

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jul 2012 03:33

^unless the strategic aspect has any interest IN has envisaged or planning? do you think IN needs that place badly?