Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2014 09:08

Jayram wrote:I think those masts or periscopes color scheme being high visibility means this puppy has not left for the deep ocean when this photo was taken. If it did that would be the first thing painted over..

That is in fact a dazzle camouflage scheme .

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 22 Aug 2014 22:07

Official IN pic .... pennant is P28!

Lots of empty deck space for future expansion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2014 22:23

srai wrote:If this is true (idrw.org is not the most reliable source), then it would make sense to go for more Scorpene SSKs since that is what the IN is standardising on as part of P-75 program.

Exactly. Why should we buy Amurs which are yet to be proven in even their home nation and share no commonality with our existing equipment?

John · Post by **John** » 22 Aug 2014 22:31

Aditya G wrote:Official IN pic .... pennant is P28!

Lots of empty deck space for future expansion

I do not know about that apart from a point defense system i honestly don't think there is anything else that can be fitted in.

titash · Post by **titash** » 23 Aug 2014 01:24

Aditya G wrote:Official IN pic .... pennant is P28!

Lots of empty deck space for future expansion

The orbit SATCOM terminal on top of the hangar is new - didn't notice that in the last rash of pics.

This corvette is larger than our old Leander class frigates and pretty much the same size as PN's Type-21/Tariq class "destroyers" & F-22/Zulfiqar class "frigates"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2014 05:18

The Amur is half the price of a Scorpene,almost $600M (!) for a non-AIP boat too.There are two in service with the Russian navy and more to be built.The IN has already asked for two to be fast tracked,as this report says.this means that the sub has already been vetted by the IN.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssian-Subs
Xcpt:

A high-level team from Rosoboronexport was in New Delhi two weeks ago to negotiate the sale or lease of two Amur-class subs, said a source in MoD who gave no details of the deliberations.

The Indian Navy also plans to build six conventional Scorpene submarines under license by DCNS of France at Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks. The delivery of those submarines has been delayed by more than four years. The first of the six submarines will now be inducted into the Navy by 2016 compared with the original delivery date of 2012.

“The delay in Scorpene delivery as well as the delay in [the 75-I] submarine project has led to extreme depletion of [the] submarine arm,” said retired Indian Navy Capt. Shyam Kumar Singh. “The next new submarine will be ready to join the fleet only in 2018. Therefore the earnest need to procure the submarines from Russia.”

China is also considering buying Amurs from this recent report.Should the IN get its Amurs first,it would have an advantage of a few years over the Chinese operating it first.
China considers buying four Russian Amur-Class AIP submarines
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0&cid=1101

It is natural for India and China to show interest in Russia's Amur-Class submarines, said a retired Russian Navy general named Sivkov. The submarine is superior to the export version of China's 877 submarine and China would want the Amur-Class vessel since India has them. The Russian submarine can also effectively fight against American submarines and destroy Los Angeles and Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from long distances. Since it produces little noise underwater, American submarines cannot detect the its presence. The characteristic allow the submarine to make fire warning shots or destroy enemy ships effectively during real battles.

Although the Amur-Class submarine can attack multiple targets on land, it cannot carry an anti-guided missile system. China does not own any submarine-based anti-missile systems as of now.

India's defense ministry made emergency orders over concerns of the country's declining defense capabilities. India has skipped the bidding process and ordered two diesel-electric Amur-Class submarines 677 from Russia to enhance its sea combat capabilities.

Currently China owns 60-plus submarines while India has 14 with a leased Russian-made nuclear-powered submarine Nerpa since 2012. The vessel is superior to Chinese submarines since it produces far less noise, said Russian experts. He believes China will not wage a war against India now even though the Chinese fleet has greater combat power than India's. China considers its fleet as a force against America and does not feel threatened by India.

There's certainly plenty of space for more armament on the Kamortas.One can add an 8 cell Klub missile launcher aft of the main gun and amidships more ASW weaponry like Medvedka.She should actually be classified as a frigate and not a corvette as said earlier.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Aug 2014 09:51

that 'P 28' has been put there using PS ??? doesnt look like it was painted or something

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2014 10:48

The Sonar market in India 'hots' up-Saurav Jha

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2014 10:49

I must say she does cut a dash.Kudos to the Indian naval architects who designed her.The "X" hull /superstructure configuration resembles some German designs.It would be interesting for the IN to see how the P-28 hull design differs stealthwise from the Kol class,which has a sloping superstructure.The RN has with its latest DDG design,gone in for an even steeper slope of the superstructure,esp. visible with the helo hangar.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Aug 2014 10:53

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... tes-8.html

is this website banned here??

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Aug 2014 10:54

One of the images from the website

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 23 Aug 2014 14:43

How about the space between funnel and aft island? It can easily take inclined Exocet/Harpoon launchers and perhaps even 2x2 Brahmos. Barak-1 already has designated space for the VLS where currently life boats are placed.

Evident in this pic:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-caihT-T4PzQ/U ... G_7611.JPG

A future replacement of Khukri, Kora classes can be designed by replacing RBU launcher with Brahmos VLS.

John wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Official IN pic .... pennant is P28!

Lots of empty deck space for future expansion
I do not know about that apart from a point defense system i honestly don't think there is anything else that can be fitted in.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Aug 2014 15:00

RBU launchers are not going to be replaced anytime soon. IN considers them hard-kill defence measures against torps.

we should however look at a VLS version that doesn't clutter up the decks.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 23 Aug 2014 15:05

Philip wrote:Kudos to the Indian naval architects who designed her.The "X" hull /superstructure configuration resembles some German designs.

Saar 5 is what she resembles.

John · Post by **John** » 23 Aug 2014 18:59

Aditya G wrote:How about the space between funnel and aft island? It can easily take inclined Exocet/Harpoon launchers and perhaps even 2x2 Brahmos. Barak-1 already has designated space for the VLS where currently life boats are placed.

Actually if you refer to the model that surface doesn't have much room there that photo is little deceiving, there also seems to a small box there and even if you manage to fit any uran launcher. They will be exposed comprising its stealth features. No chance it can take even 1x2 Brahmos far too too big to fit there. Also currently there is no Garpun FCR to support Ashm which also need to be fitted in.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Aug 2014 19:35

SNaik wrote:
Philip wrote:Kudos to the Indian naval architects who designed her.The "X" hull /superstructure configuration resembles some German designs.
Saar 5 is what she resembles.

welcome back !

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2014 00:25

In fact intriguingly there is space above the bridge left vacant where a Plank Shave radar could easily be located for either Klub or BMos missiles.Since the primary task of the vessel is ASW warfare,it would be better to fit more ASW weaponry and sensors wherever possible for a layered defence and anti-sub capability.If the sonars are capable enough,the ASW Klub variant could be carried (40+km range) along with the anti-ship version. A secondary ASW weapon system like Medvedka (11KM range) could be located amidships. The ship shuld also have a variety of anti-sub torpedoes,both lightweight and heavy.Long endurance torpedoes similar to those developed by the French,which can stay live for a few hours,repeating attack runs until the target is hit,is a must.The embarked ASW helo must have a dipping sonar.The size of the hangar indicates that a Sea King/NH-90 sized ASW helo can be accommodated.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 24 Aug 2014 06:54

Rahul M wrote:RBU launchers are not going to be replaced anytime soon. IN considers them hard-kill defence measures against torps.

we should however look at a VLS version that doesn't clutter up the decks.

VLS will add few more seconds for the projectile to eject and tip over in the desired direction. For such short ranged and quick reaction weapon I don't think that is desired (One of the reason why ESSM have slewed box launchers). We should instead develop cupola covers to cover the RBU that can streamline the RCS of that portion better.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2014 08:42

Kiran you may remember that in some Soviet warships,the RBUs were placed forward of the main gun,missile launchers.They now figure higher up below the bridge in most designs.If one could return to their former position,less exposed and shielded by side panels,they might reduce rcs,as most main guns now have stealth panels.This will also release more space for a larger arsenal of missiles in VLS silos.In our modified Leanders,the Bofors ASW mortars were also placed before the main gun.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Aug 2014 08:55

Extract from “Official” Ministry of Defense press release put out for the commissioning of INS Kamorta.

What does the mouthful “multi zone Impressed Current Cathodic Protection for suppression of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic signature” mean

What are the benefits of “foldable Hangar Door and a Rail-less Helo Traversing System”

From PIB:

First Indigenously Built Stealth Anti-Submarine Warfare Ship- INS Kamorta- Commissioned

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Aug 2014 09:02

Kamorta Commissioning Picture. Headon view showing SRGM and Bridge Superstructure:

Clicky

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Aug 2014 13:45

Seems no walkaround picture have been allowed on Kolkata and Kamorta.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... 395765.ece

...

BEL has been a silent partner to some of the most advanced programmes of the Indian Navy, has supplied all the major sensors and electronic systems onboard INS Kamorta. These include a 3-D Surveillance Radar (Revathi), Active-cum-Passive Integrated Sonar System (Humsa-NG), EW System Sanket, Combat Management System, Fire Control System (Lynx), Ship Data Network, Composite Communication System (CCS Mk III) and Data Link (Link II).

INS Kamorta is well equipped to fight in nuclear, biological and chemical warfare conditions. “The Revathi radar from BEL can easily detect any threats emerging out of both air and surface targets. It’s a proven system and has some inbuilt features like ‘track-while-scan of targets, giving edge to the operators,” a BEL official told Express.

...

member_28716 · Post by **member_28716** » 24 Aug 2014 15:07

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/08/ ... ahead.html

Sorry a Newbie Question... Incidentally my first post in the Naval Forum.. (which i have been following for more than 2+ years)..
Is this inline with the Navy's Strategy of one CBG in the East & West.. ? Considering Pakistan is our main threat wont it be prudent to have both the carriers to the West... ??
Wont it make more sense to have these in Goa were we have SBTF...

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Aug 2014 15:48

Any idea as to what PDMS will be fitted ?

maz · Post by **maz** » 24 Aug 2014 16:21

The pennant for the first P28 is indeed P28.
http://t.co/sBoxjYKkw4

This is a break from tradition - namely, carrying over pennant numbers for ships with the same name.

maz · Post by **maz** » 24 Aug 2014 18:56

Video report on Kamorta by Jugal Purohit

http://t.co/yFayLbkTVQ

Is anyone willling to upload this on Youtube as it cannot be accessed from the US?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2014 22:15

India gets its first “90 per cent indigenous” warship

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 24 Aug 2014 22:53

http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/21/arih ... ng-depths/

Anyone discussed this article yet? I wasn't aware the hull of arihant was Ti alloyed.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 25 Aug 2014 04:13

rakesh_ebull wrote:http://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/08/ ... ahead.html

Sorry a Newbie Question... Incidentally my first post in the Naval Forum.. (which i have been following for more than 2+ years)..
Is this inline with the Navy's Strategy of one CBG in the East & West.. ? Considering Pakistan is our main threat wont it be prudent to have both the carriers to the West... ??
Wont it make more sense to have these in Goa were we have SBTF...

From what I have read and heard, IN aim is to get 3 CBG by 2025-2030 period. One for east, one west and one in repair or standby.
The bold part is a thing of the past. Currently its China which is our main concern and IN planners are building its strength keeping Cheen in mind. In future wars, it will be eastern naval command which will be the center of naval action, that is my understanding.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2014 05:56

Bheeshma wrote:http://bharatkarnad.com/2014/08/21/arih ... ng-depths/

Anyone discussed this article yet? I wasn't aware the hull of arihant was Ti alloyed.

He is saying that Arihant has already done crush depth tests below 340 - 350 meters, and 1 and half hull is from severodvinsk, posting it in full:

http://www.ndtv.com/news/images/story_p ... _final.jpg.

What do you see?

The most obvious thing that has not been commented on is the humpback on the hull — the so-called “one and a half hulls””– that
permits the boat to slice through water, performing diving and other actions more efficiently. It is a design aspect, along with several other design features, taken from the Russian Severodvinsk and Borei class nuclear subs.

The less obvious but far more significant things to notice is that Arihant has apparently returned from a mission where it dived below crushing depths of well over 300 meters, around 340-350 metres, to see how well the hull would hold up. It has held up beautifully.

But how can this be deduced?Look closely at the smooth skin on the hull. The titanium alloyed hull has withstood the quite enormous pressures on it in the deep without crimping. But on the differently metalled conning tower there is evidence of the skin being crunched — see the wavy formations? — at great depths. It cannot be reproduced in labs or synthetically. And it couldn’t have happened because the Arihant dived to the 100 metre depth of the Vizag channel leading to the open sea. That the structure held up very well may be attributed to the extraordinary welding that fused the tower to the hull.

While it has been publicly put out that the Indian SSBN was working up its nuclear power plant to full power, etc., the fact is it takes no more than a month at the most, at a graduated pace, to reach the full 80 MW drive power. So for the rest of the last 8 months or so, it has been cruising and diving, including below crushing depths. After several more such deep dives the Arihant will have anechoic tiles — able to absorb sound waves, making detection by sonar more difficult — attached to its outer surface, and it will be ready for induction into fleet operations.

The most commendable aspect, other than the high-class technology and manufacturing skills of Indian welders, is the guts shown by the CO, XO, and the rest of the crew of the Arihant in making these repeated hazardous dives but required as a stern test for an SSBN.

The BIG QUESTION that arises is: With so much evidence of indigenous design and manufacturing skills on the Arihant, why is the Indian Navy still hankering for foreign submersibles and not trusting Indian capabilities to produce the Project 75i conventional submarine???

RV says:
August 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm

If one examines the picture on the India Today cover:

2DOTbpDOTblogspotDOTcom/_o_no4M2xEPY/SnraGGWlrzI/AAAAAAAAH4o/gFId3VIO0Xc/s1600/new%2Bcopy-707909DOTjpg

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) the “crimping” or “nodule” like effect/shape on the conning tower is clearly evident, and resembles that in the NDTV image. However, the same “rubbery coating” is also seen on the hull, which does not seem to be eminently evident in the NDTV image. Again, care should be taken to note the effects of resolution, angle, and lighting, and even effects of “touch ups” when judging from publicly available sources.

Further, from the image:

economictimesDOTindiatimesDOTcom/photo/4822916DOTcms

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) the hull shows a covering of a smooth silvery coating which appears to extend to the base of the conning tower. Unfortunately, the said image does not capture any details of the boat owing to the undesirable nature of the primary object/objective. Still further, from this image:

2DOTbpDOTblogspotDOTcom/_o_no4M2xEPY/TAUXIto0lwI/AAAAAAAAKh0/Il8lpGHIeXg/s400/ARIHANT-718188DOTJPG

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) the hull of the boat appears to have a rubbery coating. Thus, in a nutshell, the recent NDTV image provides no explicit/direct evidence to suggest that the boat was taken to “crushing depths”. This however does not in any way foreclose such a possibility.
Reply
RV says:
August 22, 2014 at 7:57 am

It does seem increasingly evident that the NDTV image depicting the INS Arihant does not reveal any explicit evidence that the boat was never taken to its crushing depth. The crimping/distortions and even some of the irregularities on the conning tower appears to be a consequence of optical occlusions of the anechoic tiles caused by angle, lighting, and resolution. In some cases, irregularities are deliberately induced to facilitate maximum acoustic damping. Stating my arguments in point form for the sake of brevity:

1. Given the image displayed by NDTV:

pbsDOTtwimgDOTcom/media/BvetA0GCMAAJgNFDOTpng

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) If the boat was taken to its crushing depth a likely place which would exhibit structural distortions would is the white vertical band on the rear of the conning tower. This does not appear to be the case. Further, the region where the conning tower joins the hull appears to be unaffected. This would be another region to examine for any structural distortions.

2. Comparing the NDTV image of the INS Arihant with not too common image of the boat in an article in India Today many years ago, one finds the same “nodule-like” shapes/formations on the conning tower:

iDOTimgurDOTcom/jXnyADOTjpg

please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”.

3. Finally, examining the anechoic tiles of a USS New Hampshire on its induction ceremony:

xpdaDOTcom/virginiasubs/081025-N-6553L-022DOTjpg

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) irregularities in the anechoic tiles, though of a different type, possibly because of the different coloring and the composition/size of the tiles, and the image properties. Now, examination of the image of the identical boat taken just a few days prior to the one taken above during the rehearsals for its induction ceremony:

trbimgDOTcom/img-50b7b216/turbine/hr-dp-081023-n-7441h-0520100727043438/600/600x400DOTjpg

(please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”) show differences in the anechoic tiles to that shown above, in a different conditions of resolution, lighting. angle, etc..

Thus, prima-facie the NDTV image does not exhibit any explicit evidence that the INS Arihant was taken to its crushing depth. However, one cannot entirely discount such a test(s) SINCE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!
Reply
satyaki says:
August 23, 2014 at 8:38 am

Bharat Sir,

But with just 4 K-4 missiles, isn’t the number of nuclear warheads on the Arihant class sub. bey low ? Unless the K-4 has a heavy MIRV payload, is constructing a SSBN for just 4 slums worth it?
Reply

RV says:
August 23, 2014 at 10:29 am

Take the worst case scenario of 2 K-4’s with one warhead each and the remaining 2 K-4 silos each fitted out with K-15’s in 3 pack “shooter” tubes with one warhead per K-15 (total 6 K-15’s). That makes it 2 warheads (from the K-4’s for targets at ~ 3500+ Kms.) + 6 warheads (from the K-15’s at ~ 1500 Kms.). That’s not bad for starters.

The main issues of concern now are:

1. Sound dampening – does India have: (1.) the engineering capability to do the necessary “soundproofing” of these boats, and (2.) the necessary talent possessing in-depth knowledge of instrumentation and the numerical tools to assess the quality of the “soundproofing” and identifications of possible sources of noise (such as ICA/BSS),

2. Obtaining the necessary amounts of supergrade Plutonium 239 to manufacture warheads for submarine operations.

3. SSBN operations require a different and higher level of skills than SSK and often even SSN operations. Many critical SSBN operations cannot be mimicked/emulated on a SSN (like the Akula-2). One of the finest example of such skills which are written in Letters of Gold in the annals of submarine operations was when on August 6, 1991, the Delta-IV submarine (Novomoskovsk), under the command of Captain (Second Rank) S. V. Egorov, performed a full salvo underwater launch of all 16 R-29RM SLBM’s.

The whole process took around 224 seconds. During this period, the submarine expelled more than 650 tons of weight. Launching SLBM’s in even the simplest of salvo modes is a very complex exercise for two primary reasons. First, tons of water is ingested for even a single launch . Stability control is usually achieved through a continuous process of ballasting and deballasting, while maintaining course through trimming (fins & screw). Next, while doing all the above, the submarine has to traverse a circular pattern called the “launch corridor” to minimize error. Reference is made to the Youtube clip:

wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=ath0oT-4bns

please replace all instances of “DOT” with “.”.

Accomplishing the above tasks is not easy!
Reply
Bharat Karnad says:
August 24, 2014 at 7:53 am

The Arihant may benefit from a revolver-like contraption firing ballistic and cruise missiles; so the SSBN may carry more than just 4 K-4s/K-15s.
Reply
RV says:
August 24, 2014 at 8:33 am

The revolver like contraption that you mention are the “shooter” rotating tubes which carry up to 3 K-15’s per “shooter” tube placed in a single K-4 silo. These are ONLY for K-15’s. I believe follow-up boats will carry more tubes. Some of the Ohio-class are also being converted to SSGN’s where up to 7 Tomahawks in “shooter” tubes are placed in a single Trident silos. Further, even if the Arihant has 650 mm torpedo tubes, accommodating current BrahMos designs fired from the torpedo tubes would not be possible,

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2014 07:57

The ATV certainly has a greater crushing depth than 300-350M,which is normal for conventional subs.As I illustrated earlier,the titanium hulled Alfa was tested beyond 1000+M! These subs are hideously expensive,even for the Soviets/Russians.Thus the Akula was developed.Some parts of the hull however may be/have titanium components.There is no word about shock tests,exploding depth charges/explosives to test the strength of the hull.However,a full range of tests would surely have been undergone by the sub before the sub is commissioned.

However,there should be no let up in mastering SSBN and SSGN tech and construction,along with the required delivery systems BMs with an 8-10,000KM range.This is because the nation lacks the land mass and depth which would allow it to disperse land based strategic missiles.Nevertheless, we have a huge ocean ,the IOR into which the sub-continent has easy access and offers a vast area in which we can disperse our SSBNs.The farther they are from the land mass,the more difficult it would be for an enemy sub to locate and track it,which is why we need long-legged sub-launched BMs of around 10,000km.Our strategic deterrent cannot in any way be inferior to that of the Chinese in capability and numbers.We have another joint-enemy to deal with Pak,which has its own large arsenal.The nation's strategic deterrent is of the highest priority.It alone prevents us from invasions by foreign powers that we've seen in the last decade that has devastated those nations.In the absence of longer-ranged land-based BMs and a dedicated long range bomber,which the IAF sorely needs and seems to possess a blinkered strategic vision,the IN's SSBNs in the coming years will be the chief guarantor of India's security.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 25 Aug 2014 08:02

I think it says crushing depth of 300-350m not that the crush depth for the Arihant is 350 m. It will most likely be ,more than 500 m. Arihant is Single hulled so I would be surprised if it can go below 600 m.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2014 09:57

^ Single hulled Seawolf is said to have maximum 490 meter, as Tsarkar ji mentioned on last page that thickness of Arihant's plates are double of others so yes probably Arihant will have more crush depth than others. Also being our sole project the creator team would've been extra cautious.

Just as it is said that Tejas' landing gear was made extra strong and a bit extra heavy too due to caution.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2014 10:07

what is the crush depth of a torpedo or a anti-sub mortar RBU type round?

if a sub can dive below this depth it could induce the torp to self destruct.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 25 Aug 2014 10:18

Singha I think most light weight and other torpedos have crush depth from 300-400m, this gives Nuclear subs which can dive deeper better surviabilty which smaller diesel subs cannot go down to.

But in littoral waters you may not have the luxury of diving deep.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2014 10:23

Wow khan is ages ahead of others with its Mk 48 torpedo in its speed + range combo, all others so behind:

So how would 2 nuke subs fight if they are 500 meters down facing each other while their torpedos aren't capable of such depth?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2014 10:29

Isnt Blackshark the Torpedo chosen for Scorpene Subs ?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 25 Aug 2014 10:33

Austin wrote:Isnt Blackshark the Torpedo chosen for Scorpene Subs ?

Till date no contract has been signed for any torpedo

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2014 11:00

Austin wrote:Isnt Blackshark the Torpedo chosen for Scorpene Subs ?

Another CBM by Scamthony:

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 200_1.html

Inexplicably, the ministry of defence (MoD) has failed to buy torpedoes to arm the Scorpenes it contracted for in 2005. In 2008, after a global tender, Italian company WASS was selected to supply their Black Shark torpedoes that were specifically engineered for the Scorpene. In 2011, a price was finalised: about $300 million for 98 torpedoes. Yet, even today, the contract remains unsigned.

Consequently, when the first Scorpene submarine is commissioned in 2016, it will be armed only with the Exocet anti-ship missile. Were it to be challenged by Pakistan's silent new Khalid-class submarines - the French Agosta-90B -the Scorpene will have empty torpedo tubes. Even if the new government signs the contract quickly, delivery would be unlikely before 2017.

The MoD did not respond to Business Standard's emailed questions.

A top-level navy planner laments the MoD's lack of accountability, contrasting it with how former navy chief, Admiral D K Joshi, took responsibility for warship accidents and resigned. Says the naval officer: "If a military person were responsible for commissioning a Rs 4,000 crore submarine without its primary armament, he would be charged with dereliction of duty."

The delay in signing the torpedo contract followed accusations that WASS had won unfairly, a tactic commonly used by arms vendors who are confident the MoD will suspend the contract and order investigations.

Eventually, Defence Minister A K Antony referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission, which found no indication of wrongdoing. Even so, the MoD continues to stonewall.

The prospect of an unarmed Scorpene has sent alarm bells through a navy that is down to just 11 submarines, against a minimum of 18 that naval planners require for safeguarding India's maritime interests.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2014 12:31

Thanks.

Not a scam but the delay that was part of Anthony working culture as DM.

I wonder why they float a separate tender for Torpedoes makes sense to buy the Weapons Package Along with Submarine from DCN......Unless they want to show as two separate items purchased to keep the cost of Submarine down.

We always bought Torpedoes for HDW and Kilo from the same manufacturer and never floated a separate tender