Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2015 10:58

Not at all.We have to aim to be be totally self-reliant,but have along way to go,why both APJAK and Dr.Pillai have advocated the JV route to speed up acquiring both tech and results.Even in the West,nations collaborate with each other.Russia uses Western engines for civil aircraft and helos.The KA-226 which we've chosen,has a French engine.

The IN's plumping for N-subs is because it is the only true AIP system,that has indefinite endurance,from the fuel viewpoint,gives great speed and other capabilities,a 90+ day patrol time,which conventional AIP subs cannot match (max 45-60 days and lesser range,speed and weaponload).Our N-sub reactors should be designed to have at least a 20yr.fuel factor,before refueling. The need for smaller AIP subs is because numbers do matter as well. Kilos for the Viets cost just $300M in 2009. Our Scorpene costs have risen to $800M a sub! German U-boats will cost upwards of $500/600M. The estimate for our 75Is is approx. $700-750M .a sub. When you look at the high costs of AIP subs today,the attraction of N-subs becomes clear. A few years ago,in conversation with an admiral,he too espoused the need for N-subs for the same reasons. The new challenges in countering the PLAN in its own backyard,the Indo-China Sea,requires such subs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jul 2015 11:04

http://bharat-rakshak.com/cms/news/nava ... mberg.html

I don't think we are still shaking any blue nerves off chinese here.. at least that is there reaction. I think we need to double it up! $120b by 2030, and make it 400 warships.

[read chinese reaction]

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2015 12:49

A few P-28s are not going to make the Chinese worry at all.On the contrary,read the huge numbers of ASW assets that the Chinese are commissioning/building.The latest news items about its own new ASW corvettes and aircraft. It is we who should be worried! The PLAN;s huge expansion and modernisation is beyond equaling by the IN.We have to marshall our much smaller resources -the IN gets only 20% of the Def. budget and should really get at least 25-30%,into key priorities.

The P-28s are expensive,underarmed and above all too few in number..Chinese AIP subs equipped with their latest sub-launched anti-ship missiles can pick off the P-28s if they do not have adequate anti-missile defences. It is the combination of our ASW assets,surface ships,aircraft and subs,that really counts. Detecting PLAN subs ingressing into the IOR is the first step before dealing with them.Geography has looked kindly upon us and the establishment of a SOSUS like UW chain in the A&N islands is not an impossible task to establish.That will help keeping track of the subs as they enter the IOR and enable our ASW warfare assets to trail them. A further step should also be done,establishing port/base facilities in Vietnam at Cam Ranh Bay,etc.,and even if poss. in the Phillipines, for IN warships,aircraft and subs to operate from.We will be thus able to monitor PLAN activities and movements in the Indo-China Sea itself before their assets enter through the chokepoints,even those further south of the Malaccca Straits like Sunda,etc. The building of 16-hopefully more,of shallow water ASW corvettes will enable the IN to patrol/sanitise its ports and bases more effectively.We must also upgrade our NOPVs giving them more ASW teeth. The Chinese CG is so large and getting even larger that it will dwarf the numbers of some smaller navies allowing it to effectively "police" the atolls and islands under dispute in the ICS (Indo-China Sea),maintaining its occupation and enlargening of these atolls into full-fledged naval bases by land reclamation/aggregation going on relentlessly.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2015 13:34

^^^China's GDP is 4.5 times ours. Whichever way we cut the pie, they will have a lot more resources to spend.

We need to be smart about the whole thing.

Fortunately, China has to compete with the US for the control of Asia. We can build a coalition of "sum of parts" that will be far bigger than China, who really cant count on any ally in Asia (barring maybe Pakistan and North Korea). We are attempting exactly that - the Indo-US-JApan trilateral naval initiative is a step in exactly that direction.

We cant possibly have dozens of gold plated FFGs and DDGs. Chances are that any intense hostile action would be short duration and localised. We would need one well drilled CBG for that. For the rest, we need more numbers of platforms, ocean going but inexpensive to "plant the flag".

The Sukanya class model, maybe even the P28 model - cheap warships, lightly armed (keeping costs low), but with high endurance - that should make up the numbers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2015 13:38

the Saryu class is the successor to Sukanya class I think. we need 50 such cheap hulls with diesel engine low opex to secure the whole IOR with a visible presence.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Jul 2015 14:27

^^It is. But again ordered in anaemic production run of 4.

I reckon part of the issue is how much is left in the bank after funding all the gold plated multi role platforms. This is where we need to have the right direction from a national security planning architecture. Unfortunately this is still way too primitive to take decisive decisions.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2015 15:53

Only way seems.like leave them very austere and least imported eqpt....first get the hulls in service...then find the money to upkit them...the fitted for vs fitted with philosophy

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Jul 2015 16:19

Cybaru wrote:Abhik,

Sure you can call everything AIP, including nuclear. Kilos currently have over 400 tons of batteries, we don't refer to it by AIP, do we?

But then, isn't the term "AIP" just marketing speak?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2015 17:29

In an earlier post on AIP systems,the link has an OZ analysis of what its AIP system/subs should possess given its particular geographical sphere of UW ops. In many respects,the IN's requirements may be somewhat similar to that of OZ given that both nations have large open seas around their land mass and long patrol missions.Oz which have ruled out N-subs for the moment,want larger conventional AIP types,whereas,the IN,with N-subs planned and on lease,may not require such large subs,preferring medium sized subs of Kilo class size AIP,non-AIP.These will also be cheaper and more numbers can be inducted.The Japanese are 'desperate" according to this report to win the tender,as the Oz govt. along with US pressure favours them,but the Germans are putting up a stiff fight.

http://www.marinelink.com/news/desparat ... 95403.aspx

Japan Seeks Australian Submarine Contract
By Aiswarya Lakshmi

Wednesday, July 29, 2015,
Japan will send a high-level delegation to Adelaide for talks on building Australia's next-generation fleet of submarines.
A former commander of the Japanese navy will head a 40-strong delegation to Australia next month to negotiate roles for local industry in building submarines, should Japan win the contract to provide them.
Admiral Takashi Saito is a veteran submariner who has played a key role in military diplomacy with Japan’s allies in the region and with China.

Australia’s “competitive evaluation process” is pitting Japanese, German, and French submarine builders against each other in a bid to secure a A$50 billion ($38.84 billion) contract to build six to 12 submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

Due to the secrecy surrounding Japanese interactions with the prime minister’s office, Tony Abbott has been accused of concluding a “secret deal” with Japan. Such charges are overblown, but Abbott’s preference for working with Japan – in part because of U.S. enthusiasm for a Australia-Japan venture – is well documented.

An earlier posted report xcpt.,Ru AIP system also uses diesel fuel to extract hydrogen.

Molchanov also said it would be possible to place BrahMos missiles – developed jointly by India and Russia – on Amur subs if requested, and that doing so would not affect the overall performance of the submarine.

Molchanov said Russian designers will also be able to incorporate the Indian-made air-independent propulsion system into the Amur design.
He said, however, that the Russian system was more efficient and safe compared to the Indian model as it does not require supplies of hydrogen to be carried on board the submarine.
“We get hydrogen from regular diesel fuel, which is cheap. They use more expensive technologies,” Molchanov said.
The Amur-1650 has an armament of multirole torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, and can also effectively engage land targets with advanced cruise missiles.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jul 2015 20:23

abhik wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Abhik,

Sure you can call everything AIP, including nuclear. Kilos currently have over 400 tons of batteries, we don't refer to it by AIP, do we?
But then, isn't the term "AIP" just marketing speak?

You can look at it that way, but you need a way to differentiate this when you talk about it and this serves the idea well. We do think of an oxidiser, small engine producing energy at a trickle speed when we think of AIP. AIP term helps us create excellent boundaries with pros and cons when used properly in context. We can overload it, but then we have to go back and somehow clarify the topic or discussion at hand. AIP nuclear or AIP diesel or some such classification is required to say we can do so and so with this sub. So I disagree that it is purely marketing speak.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 29 Jul 2015 20:26

Philip wrote: The Amur-1650 has an armament of multirole torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, and can also effectively engage land targets with advanced cruise missiles.

The Amur-1650 is way too small for our needs. I think IN still wants a Amur-3000/3500 for its next generation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2015 13:13

If you add an AIP module to an Amur,which also has a VLS "plug",then it certainly would be at least 2500t. From time to time we get hints about the new "Kalina" type.Could that be a surprise offer?

Funny artist's image in the link. Despite the deck provision for the angled deck for landings,there is only one runway is shown as if STOVL aircraft alone were being used. What about fixed-wing AEW birds? The pic seems to indicate that there is much RN QE carrier influence in the design with two islands,and the ski-jump as well indicates that all forms of TO are being factored in which can accommodate a weide range of carrier aircraft.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/revealed ... e]Revealed: Details of India's Second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier
New details emerge about India’s second indigenously built aircraft carrier.

By Ankit Panda
July 22, 2015

India’s second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2), the INS Vishal, the second Vikrant-class carrier, is slowly taking shape. Recently, the Indian Navy outlined the specifications of this carrier in a letter of request issued to shipbuilders worldwide. Many of the details, including the tonnage and the physical dimensions of the carrier, are in line with older expectations. For example, the Vishal will displace 65,000 tonnes—25,000 tonnes more than the first indigenous carrier, the INS Vikrant.

The Indian Navy’s Naval Design Bureau clarified other features: the carrier will travel at 30 knots, a hair above the Vikrant, and come in at a length of 300 meters, longer than the 262 meter Vikrant. The Navy’s letter of request also outlines plans for the carrier to field between 30 and 35 fixed-wing combat aircraft and 20 rotary wing aircraft. In many ways, though this carrier will be the second in the indigenous Vikrant-class, it represents a significant upgrade over the first carrier, which was bogged down in delays ahead of its successful undocking in early June 2015. The Vishal and Vikrant, along with the modified Kiev-class Vikramaditya, will form the carrier backbone of India’s Navy, and, with the decommissioning of the INS Viraat, the longest-serving aircraft carrier in the world, the total Indian Navy carrier count will stand at three.

The Navy’s letter of request states that that carrier will be the first in the Indian fleet—and first non-Western carrier—to field a catapult launched but arrest landing (CATOBAR) aircraft launch system. There is a possibility that the CATOBAR system could incorporate General Dynamics’ new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) technology, pending a feasibility study with the United States. As I detailed in April, EMALS carries several benefits that could given the Vishal an edge over its regional competitors, notably China’s Liaoning.

As I wrote in The Diplomat earlier this year, U.S.-India cooperation on advanced aircraft carrier technology, including nuclear propulsion and EMALS, could prove to considerably alter the naval balance of power in Asia. Indian carriers could become the first in Asia to field a CATOBAR capability, drastically improving the rate at which carrier-based aircraft could take off in an operational scenario. In addition to operational benefits, EMALS would also reduce the airframe stress of CATOBAR launches for carrier-based aircraft, reducing maintenance costs over time. (For a demonstration of EMALS, check out this video posted from its preliminary testing phase aboard the first Ford-class U.S. carrier.)

According to Indian reports, defense firms from four states received the letter of interest regarding the IAC-2 project. These include Russia’s Rosoboronexport, the United States’ Lockheed Martin, France’s DCNS, and the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems. Lockheed could stand to win the contract given the broader conversation around carrier technology cooperation between the United States and India. Strategic considerations in both New Delhi and Washington may lead to heavy U.S. involvement in the IAC-2 project. Even if EMALS falls through due to feasibility considerations, the issue of nuclear propulsion alone leaves considerable room for cooperation.[/quote]

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 30 Jul 2015 14:43

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/indias-m ... ign=buffer

Recently a Chinese Yuan-class 335 submarine docked at Pakistan’s Karachi port. The Indian Navy played down the revelation. The Navy’s Vice Chief Admiral P. Murugesan insisted that the “docking of a submarine belonging to some other country in a third country itself is not a big concern.” However India’s inability to detect not only the sub before it docked at Karachi but also the support ship accompanying it is alarming, given the fact that the vessels circumnavigated India.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 Jul 2015 14:54

^Ya right, like the IN would tell either way. Maybe the dipomutt presstitutes want to elicit a foolish response from the IN.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2015 17:49

The sub could've easily avoided detection by staying far off our coastline and major naval bases/operational areas. We just do not have the numbers of subs and ASW assets to patrol perfectly. The tropical waters of the IOR make sub detection a v.difficult task. Secondly,it isn't a time of crisis when the IN would've been on high alert for subs. Nevertheless,we are making efforts to augment ASW capability but more needs to be done. The 16+ shallow water ASW corvettes of approx 750+t is an important programme that needs to be accelerated.L&T are building 23 months ahead of schedule,55 ICVs for the CG. This contract should go to a pvt. yard who can deliver on or before time.Here is an intersting viewpoint from Spore.

India's $83b naval warning to China
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south- ... g-to-china

India plans to spend at least US$61 billion (S$83 billion) on expanding its navy's size by about half in 12 years.
PHOTO: REUTERS
PUBLISHEDJUL 30, 2015,

A Hindu priest blessing the Kavaratti, one of the Indian Navy's four anti-submarine warfare corvettes, during its launch at a dockyard in Kolkata.
Anti-sub warships part of bid to deter China from establishing foothold in Indian Ocean
NEW DELHI • In a dock near central Kolkata, one of India's most lethal new weapons is going through its final outfit.

The Kadmatt bristles with technology to sniff out and destroy underwater predators. It is the second of four warships in India's first dedicated anti-submarine force - a key part of plans to spend at least US$61 billion (S$83 billion) on expanding the navy's size by about half in 12 years.

The build-up is mostly aimed at deterring China from establishing a foothold in the Indian Ocean. Its other goal is to transform India's warship-building industry into an exporting force that can supply the region, including American partners in Asia wary of China's increased assertiveness.

The "naval build-up is certainly occurring in the context of India moving towards a greater alignment with the US and its allies to balance China", said Mr David Brewster, a specialist in Indo-Pacific security at the Australian National University in Canberra. "India wants to be able to demonstrate that Beijing's activities in South Asia do not come without a cost, and Delhi is also able to play in China's neighbourhood."

The US Seventh Fleet has patrolled Asia's waters since World War II and is backing India's naval expansion. On a January visit to New Delhi, US President Barack Obama pledged to explore ways of sharing aircraft carrier technology.

India's fleet of 137 ships falls far short of the more than 300 vessels in China, which has Asia's biggest navy. China boasts at least 62 submarines, including four capable of firing nuclear ballistic missiles, according to the Pentagon.
The two countries also flagged the need to safeguard security in the South China Sea, where neither has territorial claims.

India's fleet of 137 ships falls far short of the more than 300 vessels in China, which has Asia's biggest navy. China boasts at least 62 submarines, including four capable of firing nuclear ballistic missiles, according to the Pentagon.

"We would like to have the moon," Navy Vice-Chief P. Murugesan has said, acknowledging that India's goal of a 200-ship navy by 2027 was ambitious.

Most of the vessels will be made in India, a sign that moves to upgrade its shipyards are starting to pay off for the world's biggest importer of weapons. India plans to add at least 100 warships, including two aircraft carriers, and three nuclear-powered submarines capable of firing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. It will also tender for submarine-rescue vessels, a first for a navy that has operated submarines for four decades.

"What we are seeing is a significant ramping up of blue-water capacity," said Mr Collin Koh Swee Lean, an associate research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

Part of that strategy involves overseas sales. India is boosting ties with Mauritius and Seychelles, and has offered to help Myanmar modernise its navy.

India is also hosting naval exercises with the US and Japan later this year and holding its first-ever drills with Australia in September.

Delhi wants to produce all of the components on its naval vessels domestically by 2030, Navy Chief R.K. Dhowan, has said. It now makes about a third of weapons and sensors, and about 60 per cent of propulsion systems.

To make that happen, Admiral Dhowan wants private firms involved. While India is capable of building warships, it relies on the US, Russia and Europe for technology and lags the world's bigger players, said researcher Siemon Wezeman at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

"India does not have a very glorious record in defence manufacturing, and certainly not for exports," he said. "Things may change for the better with the private sector."

Chinese observers led by the Defence Ministry spokesman, Senior Colonel Yang Yujun, told Indian media this month that clashes are possible if India views the adjacent ocean as its "backyard".

"India wants to take a leadership role in the Indian Ocean and ultimately become the predominant naval power," Mr Brewster said. "Its moves reflect an instinctive view among many in Delhi that if the Indian Ocean is not actually India's Ocean, then in an ideal world it ought to be."

BLOOMBERG

PS:For a start,let's start calling the SCS the "Indo-China Sea" instead,as the landmass adjacent has always been known as Indo-China.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Jul 2015 18:23

Philip wrote:If you add an AIP module to an Amur,which also has a VLS "plug",then it certainly would be at least 2500t. From time to time we get hints about the new "Kalina" type.Could that be a surprise offer?

Funny artist's image in the link. Despite the deck provision for the angled deck for landings,there is only one runway is shown as if STOVL aircraft alone were being used. What about fixed-wing AEW birds? The pic seems to indicate that there is much RN QE carrier influence in the design with two islands,and the ski-jump as well indicates that all forms of TO are being factored in which can accommodate a weide range of carrier aircraft.

That image seems like the QE platform schematics from before the ship got finalized. we really need it to be much bigger than 2500 tons, if we are going to load it with sensors and other longer range missiles.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2015 10:59

The model shown at earlier air shows of the Amur,had a plug with 10 BMos missiles. That seemed to be around 1750-2000t,as the sub was single-hulled.To add another AIP plug of 9m,the std. size of some modules,would add approx. another 15% dplt. So 2500t should be sufficient,since we also plan to acquire more SSGNs/SSNs for longer duration ops.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2015 13:45

How China is making use of old PLAN warships...for its Coast Guard.
http://www.janes.com/article/53248/chin ... rd-cutters

China converting old frigates into coastguard cutters
Andrew Tate, London - IHS Jane's Navy International
27 July 2015

China appears to be transferring at least two of its Type 053H2G 'Jiangwei I'-class frigates from the People's Liberation Army Navy to the China Coast Guard. Source: Via haohanfw.com

Work appears to be underway to modify a number of Type 053H2G 'Jiangwei I'-class frigates for transfer from the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to the China Coast Guard.

Photographs show two 'Jiangwei I' frigates alongside at a naval shipyard in Pudong, Shanghai, one of which has had most of its armament removed and the hull painted white. Limited work has been undertaken on the second so far.

According to IHS Jane's Fighting Ships , four ships of the 'Jiangwei I' class were built and commissioned between 1991 and 1994. With a length of 112 m and beam of 12 m, the ships displace around 2,300 tonnes in naval guise, with 2 shafts driven by two diesel engines.

The ship undergoing modification has had the YJ-83 anti-ship missile launchers, HQ-61 surface-to-air missile (SAM) launcher and the twin 100 mm gun turret removed, as well as the two aft twin 37 mm gun mountings. The two forward twin 37 mm mountings are currently still in place.

The IN many years ago transferred its old warships to the Training sqd. Since we are in the near future going to retire the "G" class FFGs,stripping them of their main armament ,SSM/SAM missiles,etc. could still make them very useful CG "cutters",as they still have a twin-helo hangar which could be occupied by LUHs or even UAVs. In a crisis they could revert back to supporting ASW helos. A lot depends upon the hull condition,but considering that we've nursed the Viraat for two decades beyond its scrap-by date, the CG could benefit from retired/renovated IN FFGs,etc. This could be a very cost-effective method of augmenting the CG's capability and numbers,esp as these vessels would have greater endurance and range for extended CG ops.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 03 Aug 2015 16:32

Paul wrote:http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/indias-m ... ign=buffer

Recently a Chinese Yuan-class 335 submarine docked at Pakistan’s Karachi port. The Indian Navy played down the revelation. The Navy’s Vice Chief Admiral P. Murugesan insisted that the “docking of a submarine belonging to some other country in a third country itself is not a big concern.” However India’s inability to detect not only the sub before it docked at Karachi but also the support ship accompanying it is alarming, given the fact that the vessels circumnavigated India.

How do we know whether IN detected and followed the sub to the na Pak base ?

John · Post by **John** » 03 Aug 2015 16:38

Philip wrote:The model shown at earlier air shows of the Amur,had a plug with 10 BMos missiles. That seemed to be around 1750-2000t,as the sub was single-hulled.To add another AIP plug of 9m,the std. size of some modules,would add approx. another 15% dplt. So 2500t should be sufficient,since we also plan to acquire more SSGNs/SSNs for longer duration ops.

All it is a model it is highly unlikely a vessel the size of Amur can carry 2 addl brahmos let alone 10 Brahmos without serious perf degradation. If it where that easy we will LA class SSN floating aroung 60 tomahawks silos...

Also Amur is unproven design and seems to be more less dead platform when it comes to its export prospects. Since amount of time and $$ russians have spent trying to promote it has dwindled significantly.

I wouldn't be suprised if they launch newer design for export based on changes that were incoporated into newer lada.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Aug 2015 17:00

related to the message (for all dhaagas)
http://idrw.org/kalams-unrealised-nag-m ... more-70665

“Think big. It is a sin to think small,” - Kalam

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Aug 2015 18:39

That's propaganda by Diplomat
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/chi ... 22484.html
"Docking of a submarine belonging to some other country in a third country itself is not a big concern but we do monitor them, whichever submarines operate in our region," Vice Admiral P Murugesan, Vice Chief of Naval Staff, told reporters here today.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2015 19:25

The BMos Amur was not just a model but a definite design. The problem is that the Russians were trying out some new tech in a single-hulled sub for the first time,and used the first two for experimentation and to perfect the design.More may now be built. In 2014,according to some reports,we wanted to fast track the transfer of two Amurs. This seems to have been scrapped in favour of more N-subs ,on lease,desi built, and built-in-India conventional boats. Some details:

[quoteThe Project 677 Lada Class diesel-electric submarines are being built by Admiralty Shipyard for the Russian Navy. The class is also called the Petersburg Class, after the lead submarine.

The Lada Class succeeds the Kilo Class submarines.

"The Project 677 Lada Class diesel-electric submarines are being built by Admiralty Shipyard for the Russian Navy."
The keel for the lead sub in class, Sankt-Petersburg (B-585), was laid down in December 1997 and launched in October 2004. The submarine was delivered to the Russian Navy in April 2010 and commissioned in May 2010.

Two submarines under construction are: Kronshtadt (B-586) - laid in July 2005 - and Sevastopol (B-587) - laid in November 2006. The Russian Navy plans to build a total of eight Lada Class submarines.

The Project 677 submarine is an improved version of the Project 636 Kilo Class with much quieter, powerful propulsion and new combat systems. The fourth generation submarines can be deployed in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (AsuW) operations, protection of naval bases, reconnaissance and patrol missions.

The export variant of the Lada Class, the Project 1650 Amur Class has been designed for markets such as India and China. Amur Class is offered in various configurations with a displacement of 550t to 1,850t and different weapon systems.

Lada Class design features

Lada Class diesel-electric submarines are designed by the Russian Rubin Design Bureau. The ship incorporates a mono-hull design. The surface displacement was reduced to 1,765t from 2,300t of the double-hulled Kilo Class submarine.

The full submerged speed has been increased from 19 to 21kt and crew complement has been decreased from 52 to 35.

The submarine has a trimmed profile equipped with sophisticated torpedo and missile systems. The hull is covered with a new anti-sonar coating for low acoustic signature.

Lada Class uses hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells generating electricity for low noise operation. The submarine is fitted with Litiy automated combat control system. The integrated system controls the combat and technical systems of the submarine.

The Lada Class has a surface speed of 10kt and submerged speed of 21kt. The propulsion system provides a submerged cruising range of 7,500nmi at an economical speed of 3kt. The maximum diving depth is 300m. The submerged displacement of the boat is 2,700t.
Weapon systems onboard the Project 677 Lada Class diesel-electric submarines

Lada Class is armed with club-S submarine launched cruise missiles. The missile can be fired from standard torpedo tubes.

"Lada Class diesel-electric submarines are designed by the Russian Rubin Design Bureau."

Club-S carries up to 400kg warheads and can strike land and naval targets within a range of 300km. The six 533mm torpedo tubes fitted on the ship can launch up to 18 torpedoes, tube-launched anti-submarine and anti-ship missiles.

The Lada Class submarines are fitted with modern sonar equipment such as bow, flank arrays and towed array sonars. The Lira sonar system with quasi-conformal (abutting the hull of the submarine) antenna can detect low-noise targets located at long ranges.

The ship has an inertial navigation system for safe navigation and determination of motion parameters. The system ensures the accuracy of onboard weapons by providing guidance during long underwater operations. The countermeasures are provided by the electronic support measures (ESM) system, radar warning receiver and direction finder.

Propulsion and power of the Russian subs

The submarine's propulsion system integrates two diesel generators, a main electric propulsion motor, two air independent propulsion (AIP) systems and a single shaft driving on a skewed seven-bladed propeller.

The AIP system based on oxygen / hydrogen fuel cells increases the Lada Class submerged endurance from 15 to 45 days. It also reduces noise by avoiding the need for frequent battery recharge by diesel generators.

The diesel engine operating short time in the snorkelling mode increases the endurance of the submarine. The submarine also has a storage battery with an increased service life.
][/quote]

USNI analysis:
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... eet-reborn

The Lada-class diesel-electric submarine (sometimes referred to as the Saint Petersburg class after the name of the lead ship) follows in the footsteps of her incredibly successful predecessor, the Kilo class. Although the Lada, like her nuclear counterparts, has suffered numerous delays and setbacks, her capabilities eclipse the Kilo in every category. She is lighter, faster, and although not confirmed, may incorporate an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. In development for decades but only recently sufficiently safe for widespread acceptance, AIP systems use an electrical storage system such as hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to allow a diesel submarine to operate and charge batteries without accessing atmospheric air. This gives a submarine equipped with such a system a dramatic advantage over previous generations by mitigating the diesel boat’s Achilles’ heel—the need to snorkel while running her diesel engine to charge her batteries. If the Lada class does employ an AIP system as suspected, her submerged endurance would increase drastically from 15 up to as many as 45 days. 18

To reduce manning requirements, and likely increase her export marketability, the Lada utilizes a new automated combat system. Leveraging this upgrade and further capitalizing on the worldwide demand for Kilos, Moscow has planned to build a variant of the Lada specifically for export, the “Amur.” 19 The Lada/Amur will likely continue the legacy of the Kilo, which because of her widespread proliferation, necessitated a fundamental shift in worldwide naval strategy. Now a hostile government need not undertake the lengthy and enormously expensive process of amassing a large surface fleet to pose a significant threat to major sea lines of communication. Rather, for the relatively low price of around $300 million, even a small nation with a single submarine operating off its shores can dramatically alter the strategic balance of a region. China, the proud owner of at least ten Kilos, has already ordered four Amur-class submarines from the Russian Navy. 20 The thought of several of these nearly undetectable threats lurking in the South China Sea, armed with Sizzler missiles, surely causes military planners developing strategies to protect Taiwan from a Chinese incursion a great deal of anxiety.

John · Post by **John** » 03 Aug 2015 22:49

Philip wrote:The BMos Amur was not just a model but a definite design. The problem is that the Russians were trying out some new tech in a single-hulled sub for the first time,and used the first two for experimentation and to perfect the design.More may now be built. In 2014,according to some reports,we wanted to fast track the transfer of two Amurs. This seems to have been scrapped in favour of more N-subs ,on lease,desi built, and built-in-India conventional boats. Some details:

A design that seems quite improbable even USN couldn't squeeze in more than 12 TLAM into LA class without degrading its performance but somehow Russians can squeeze in 10 Brahmos into an SSK 1/3rd the size of the former. On top of that 10 Brahmos weight nearly 2-3 times as much as 12 TLAM so IMO it is not realistic design. Just a PR ploy and since IN as chosen not to go with Brahmos for submarines (only Brahmos-M in future) it is a moot argument anyway. As for Amur rumor most of those were just that rumors, only rumor that was substantial was L&T interest in setting up production line for Amur which fell thru.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 03 Aug 2015 23:07

Why not just build more scorpenes with Indian sonars, suits and torpedos. The DRDO AIP should come in handy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2015 15:55

Just take a dekko at the SSGN and SSBN designs of both nations.They can squeeze in heaps of missiles.The L&T "8 pack" was developed with Russia for the Rajputs,the same module can be added in a plug for BMos.The Amur design had 10 silos.BMos-M when it arrives,can be fired from torpedo tubes.Our own ATV carries 4X3 K-15s,with a range from 750km to much more. I discussed this years ago with the DRDO guys at the BMos pav. They said the design is ready,the missile too but there was no sub. So it was tested from a UW pontoon. Interesting ways in which to reduce sub maintenance,by the US.

With new paint and grease, Navy tries to lengthen submarines' life

GROTON, Conn. — As it tries to get the most out of each of its $2.6 billion attack submarines, the U.S. Navy is finding a lot depends on the right paint job.

A new painting process that helps keep marine life from fouling the hulls is among dozens of innovations aimed at reducing the maintenance needs for attack submarines, which are coming out of service faster than they can be replaced.

"They're not very glamorous but they're huge in terms of payback to the fleet," said Navy Capt. Mike Stevens, a manager for the Virginia-class submarine program at Naval Sea Systems Command.

The changes were developed by private and government shipyards in response to a request from the Navy, which wants to squeeze more service life out of each vessel. In addition to the paint, updates include water-resistant grease for hatches, a special coating on the metal rods that extend the bow planes to minimize deposits, and redesigned water-lubricated bearings to improve support of the propeller shaft.

The goal is for the submarines eventually to go eight years between lengthy and expensive major overhaul periods, up from six years currently.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/with-new ... e-1.361118

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 04 Aug 2015 23:36

A great article about nuclear marine propulsion. A good read that gives high level insights.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-P ... red-Ships/

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Aug 2015 18:30

http://news.yahoo.com/france-seeking-bu ... 38157.html

at $1.2 billion for two mistral (is that a typo) ---even if it is at $1 billion a piece --- sounds like a steal... will Indian navy be interested to quickly grab them..?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2015 18:37

the helicopters and LSTs to fill it out would weigh in at another $1b.

its not like we have our own 10t medium naval heli to do this cheaply.

its better we use some cheaper and more austere design from elsewhere and build it locally.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Aug 2015 18:55

Prithwiraj wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/france-seeking-bu ... 38157.html

at $1.2 billion for two mistral (is that a typo) ---even if it is at $1 billion a piece --- sounds like a steal... will Indian navy be interested to quickly grab them..?

I recall reading somewhere that these ships were built to specific Russians specs. Doors, windows, everything was "Russian". Have no clue how that may impact an Indian decision, but ......... something to consider.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Aug 2015 19:11

NRao wrote:
Prithwiraj wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/france-seeking-bu ... 38157.html

at $1.2 billion for two mistral (is that a typo) ---even if it is at $1 billion a piece --- sounds like a steal... will Indian navy be interested to quickly grab them..?
I recall reading somewhere that these ships were built to specific Russians specs. Doors, windows, everything was "Russian". Have no clue how that may impact an Indian decision, but ......... something to consider.

They have already removed all the Russian components--- and France is disparate to sell them...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Aug 2015 20:34

probably keeping them dockside in working and saleable condition is costing the french some $1 mil a month for skeleton staff, power, fuel, dock fees.....no wonder they are eager to sell.

australia has spent a lot of A$ on the hobart class aaw ships and is saving the rest for its submarine pgm.

singapore or malaysia is a possibility. but they could easily buy korean or japanese too.

canada is another prospect but i doubt their politicians will approve a major purchase...

brazil too - they are on good terms with the french.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 06 Aug 2015 20:38

It will take 6-7 years for multi-role vessel contact to deliver anything (maybe more)

If we can get quick 2 Mistral in working condition then its good.

The other option will be to increase the need from 4 to 6 & make 4 Mistral in India (according to contract the IN seek). Win-Win situation !!!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 06 Aug 2015 21:10

There's no Win-Win with the French especially if you leave the negotiating for other ships to later. They need to sell now so better to squeeze them now for all future Make in India ones as well! And throw in the mix negotiations for a couple of Scorpenes too.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 06 Aug 2015 22:14

The gorshkov saga will look like a beach party if IN is stupid enough to acquire these junks. Let NATO or some other stupid western nation pay for essentially frances mistake.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Aug 2015 22:22

Bheeshma wrote:The gorshkov saga will look like a beach party if IN is stupid enough to acquire these junks. Let NATO or some other stupid western nation pay for essentially frances mistake.

why are they junks? on a counter note-- why would India be needing them.. without the helos (acquiring them will be a different saga altogether) these will be useless anyway

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 06 Aug 2015 22:49

Cause they were made to Russian Navy specs and Not IN's. Here is an idea, why not build our own flat tops based on Vikrant.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 06 Aug 2015 23:52

^^^^^ because flat tops are not Amphibious vehicles. There is a big difference.

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 06 Aug 2015 23:58

Bheeshma wrote:Cause they were made to Russian Navy specs and Not IN's. Here is an idea, why not build our own flat tops based on Vikrant.

Comparing Mistral opportunity with INS Vikramaditya is kind of not right---- Mistrals are fully ready -- and operational including completed sea trials--- and they are hot out of the oven --- and can be bought immediately---... off-course complimentary training, heavy naval helos etc. will take time...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Aug 2015 00:07

Singha wrote:probably keeping them dockside in working and saleable condition is costing the french some $1 mil a month for skeleton staff, power, fuel, dock fees.....no wonder they are eager to sell.

Usually its the contractor that holds the upper hand once exclusive negotiations start, as the service grows more and more desperate for equipment. If we do make a play for them, negotiating for these ships should be interesting experience.