INS Arihant (ATV) News and Discussion -2

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Aug 2009 18:22

negi

He has dissed his better half already - you think a few top scientists will stop him?????

Man lives in some strange world where we will not be able to reach him

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Aug 2009 10:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

Beginning in 2002 through 2010, 22 of the 24 88-inch (2.2 m) diameter Trident missile tubes will be modified to contain large vertical launch systems (VLS), one configuration of which may be a cluster of seven Tomahawk cruise missiles. In this configuration, the number of cruise missiles carried could be a maximum of 154, the equivalent of what is typically deployed in a surface battle group. Other payload possibilities include new generations of supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles, and Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBM)[3], unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), the ADM-160 MALD, sensors for anti-submarine warfare or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, counter-mine warfare payloads such as the AN/BLQ-11 Long Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS), and the broaching universal buoyant launcher (BUBL) and stealthy affordable capsule system (SACS) specialized payload canisters.

The missile tubes also have room for stowage canisters that can extend the forward deployment time for special forces. The other two Trident tubes are converted to swimmer lockout chambers. For special operations, the Advanced SEAL Delivery System and the Dry Deck Shelter can be mounted on lock out chamber and the boat will be able to host up to 66 special operations sailors or Marines, such as Navy SEALs. Improved communications equipment installed during the upgrade allows the SSGNs to serve as a forward-deployed, clandestine Small Combatant Joint Command Center.[4]

source : Wikipedia

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2009 12:28

There are so many claimants creeping out of the Arihant closet these days,for its success,that one is amused.Yes,several IN admirals,MK Roy,Adm.Ganesh,etc.,in the past made significant contributions too,apart from the team of Russian nuclear scientists and naval experts assisting us.Nobody however has remarked upon why it took so long to achieve,why BAARC's reactors were failures,who were responsible for the delay and massive cost increase.When Adm.Bhagwat wanted an audit,he was unceremoniously sacked,it appeared though that his "revelation" of the worst kept secret of India-that it had an ATV nuclear sub programme,was merely an excuse to sack him because he refused to promote an officer to flag rank.One media report has a story that the ATV was ready early this year for the launch,but the PM-the good Dr.Singh,delayed the launch because of his poor health (his heart surgery) and inability to find an opportune time for the launch! Wehave innumerable instances where our political masters have delayed opening of bridges,flyovers,institutions,etc.,because they disgracefully "couldn't find the time". So the Arihant was reportedly launched 6 months after it was ready to hit the water.Talk about looking after the nation's security!

As the famous saying goes,"Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan"!

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 28 Aug 2009 14:10

I see no reason to discredit entire BARC for sins of few , BARC has done good work in the area of power generation, computing, life science , reactors civil and defence , space and hundred of other areas.

Agreed but Arihants reactor is not a natural uranium fueled pressurized heavy water reactor -it is an enriched uranium fueled light water pressurized reactor and the varibales are all too different from neutron flux density to absorption co efficient to .....BARC has no previous experience in these areas so came in the russian factor .Nothing is wrong in this except acknowledging the extent and depth of help

BARC does not work in isolation , they are part of GOI apparatus and they have to toe the GOI line , so we really do not know if it was the then GOI , the babus or the scientist that caved in , it is possible that BARC must have told them we need test and GOI did not have the courage to go beyond the 5.

There is some thing called integrity of character -that statement from BARC after pokhran allowed government to lie to the public better and go ahead with nuclear deal castrating our nuclear weapon capability almost for ever .Every thing is not about having top job and attractive postings after you and me pay their salary - so we need to be told the truth - so many failures have occurred in past -look at ISRO and they have acknowledged and come out stronger . The nation was deceived on a grand scale and that is what is un acceptable

We really do not know who is at fault , but what we know is TN failed and we need to test it again before GOI sign on the dotted line of CTBT or just loose the ability to develop such class of weapons forever which is unacceptable

not a question of fault finding -it was failed experiment that's all and we need to re do it -but that great lie to the nation complicated the simple issue of retesting many times over

Same thing with Arihants reactor -if today based on that statement that it is 100% indian ,government buys MRCA form US AND Russia withdraws from supporting our nuclear submarine programe it will once again castrate our deterrence for years to come

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Aug 2009 15:49

If after depending on Russia for 70% of big items, one buy of MRCA makes them behavle like the way you say THEN better now than later.

Some lovely freinds you want us to be with??

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 28 Aug 2009 16:00

If after depending on Russia for 70% of big items, one buy of MRCA makes them behavle like the way you say THEN better now than later.

Some lovely freinds you want us to be with??

you are missing the point time and again

it is not what russia may or may not do -it is what US will do if /when we go for the next series of nuke test which seems inevitable now

and then we will have only russia to turn to for most of our defense needs

and you seem to suggest we burn that bridge too -sound advice I must say

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Aug 2009 16:19

Where did I say we MUST buy from US?

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 28 Aug 2009 16:51

Me thinks that India is going to test before uncle SAM manhandles us into signing the CTBT. This is just an excuse for the test.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Aug 2009 17:11

There is not much the US can do. People seem to forget that every country has moved on since 65 and 71 (or for that matter even 98). Current dynamics are very different. Yes, the US (and now China) want all other nations to do what they think is right, but there are cracks large enough to escape from such potential diktats. And, there seems to be a recognition of this situation.

And, one cannot deal with the future from a position of fear.

AND Russia withdraws from supporting our nuclear submarine programe it will once again castrate our deterrence for years to come

IMHO, THAT would be really good for India. High time Indians learned to swim - even at a much higher cost.

India is paying today for her mistakes of her past. Might as well correct the situation before grandkids face this "AND Russia withdraws". This is NOT a knock on the Russians, but a clear knock on the Indians.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Aug 2009 17:29

government buys MRCA form US AND Russia withdraws from supporting our nuclear submarine programe it will once again castrate our deterrence for years to come

The GoI should buy the MRCA plane which is best for India.

Such a mentality is NOT anti-Russian or anti ANY country.

Is is purely PRO-Indian.

How long is India going to be fearful of BOTH the US and Russia?

As far as the consultancy for the Arihant goes, the consultants (I hope) have been paid for. Any future support, I am sure will be paid for.

BUT, I do hope India weans herself off from these guys ASAP.

I am more concerned about Indians growing up with this silly fear than the refusal for consultancy.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 28 Aug 2009 18:01

Philip wrote:As the famous saying goes,"Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan"!

Saar I see victory only, where is the defeat?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Aug 2009 18:42

Shankar wrote: Agreed but Arihants reactor is not a natural uranium fueled pressurized heavy water reactor -it is an enriched uranium fueled light water pressurized reactor and the varibales are all too different from neutron flux density to absorption co efficient to .....BARC has no previous experience in these areas so came in the russian factor .Nothing is wrong in this except acknowledging the extent and depth of help

Do you expect BARC to come out with this ? And why should they ?

Are the russians complaining ? So its an tacit understanding that what ever help they got will not be made public , least of all in the area of reactor design.

Has any country in the world developed a Nuclear submarine , without even designing a single conventional submarine of its own ?

If you understand this you know where we stand , but does it really matter ?

I have not heard or read Mr Pillai giving any due to Russians after so many Brahmos test where they officially are 49 % stake holders .

There is some thing called integrity of character -that statement from BARC after pokhran allowed government to lie to the public better and go ahead with nuclear deal castrating our nuclear weapon capability almost for ever .Every thing is not about having top job and attractive postings after you and me pay their salary - so we need to be told the truth - so many failures have occurred in past -look at ISRO and they have acknowledged and come out stronger . The nation was deceived on a grand scale and that is what is un acceptable

Is BARC a charity organisation or a temple where the monks worship , do you expect people to speak truth and nothing but the truth ?

Do we as an individual ( thats includes me you or any body ) speak truth and only but the truth ?

These people work for defence and develop weapons , and their activity remain concealed/secret and they will toe GOI line , if they have differences they may express it to GOI , but finally they will toe the GOI line , Truth or Lie is irrelevant

ISRO by the nature of the work they do are more transparent and they have nothing to loose hiding any thing , so they tend to come out stronger and succeed after failures.

not a question of fault finding -it was failed experiment that's all and we need to re do it -but that great lie to the nation complicated the simple issue of retesting many times over

If its a lie to the nation , its a lie to the nation , what can you do or any body do ?

If scientific community agrees and GOI agrees and no independent arbitrator exist then its party time , Miya Biwi razi tho kya karenga kazi ?

Did GOI always told truth to the nation in every matters ? And this is the first time they are lying to the nation ? Come on man they do it every time in other matters as well like Food , Employment , Poverty , Education ...........

People who realized this and think their speaking can make a difference like Santy choose to speak about it , now lets see what happens from here

Same thing with Arihants reactor -if today based on that statement that it is 100% indian ,government buys MRCA form US AND Russia withdraws from supporting our nuclear submarine programe it will once again castrate our deterrence for years to come

Why would India buying MMRCA from any where should be a game changer ? If Russia withdraws they loose a market that they still capture more than 50 %

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Aug 2009 19:20

Brothers can we please limit the RU bhakti and constant belittling of our scientific fraternity .

The RUs benefited from German engg/scientists who worked on the V-1/V-2 teams , RUs skills in obtaining turbine blade material IP from UKstan and even the BUM blue prints from Unkil are well known but do you see people dissing the RU inputs and their scientific and engineering fraternity ?

There is only so much consulting and external help can do...from there on one has to get things working on his/her own.

ISRO sent Aryabhatta ,Chandrayan for first time ever will you scrutinize and critic these efforts too as Arihant ? How are your comments different from NPAs who

as to how ISRO built SLV from NASA's scout rakkits and that PSLV is a lifted french design ?

--edited--

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2009 19:32

I think that I've posted elsewhere that why should we really bother about any friendly country winning or losing any deal? Look,we are trying to indigenise as much as possible.DRDO made too many tall claims that they dould reinvent a better wheel and in several cases were caught out.So JV tie-ups with Russia and Israel (Brahmos and LR Barak-)are in the works.We are in another JV with Russia,producing SU-30MKIs at home,which have bested the best western fighters barring the F-22 and are co-producing the 5th-gen fighter,which will be the mainstay of the IAF for the next few decades! So Indo-Russian aerospace cooperation is very healthy.The MMRCA deal is for an interin medium sized fighter to fill in the gaps caused by the exit of several hundreds of MIG-21s and MIG-23s.The LCA is yet to arrive and I personally feel that there should be a commonality between the MMRCA and either the SU-30MKI or the LCA project,which badly needs an infusion of foreign assistance for its engine,radar,PM and flight testing in particular,to arrive in MK-2 avatar,asap wearing the IAF roundel.

I do not think that if Russia loses out in the MMRCA stakes they will halt defence cooperation at all for reasons stated above.In fact,Russo-IN cooperation is progressing steadily upwards,with Brahmos to be sub-launched,more nuclear SSGNs (Akulas),more SSBN ATVs too-with their Russian input,More Talwars,missiles,MI-17s,MIG-29Ks,KA-31Ks,etc.,etc.! Our T-90 indigenously built tanks are rolling out of Avadi,so what Russia worry about?The one major aberration was the Gorky deal which for genuine reasons,the volume of work and price was underestimated by both sides.Russia has acknowledged this as a mistake on its part by Medvedev himself! With current Russo-Ukraine relations in "harm's way",no support from Ukraine either of drawings,etc. of the carrier has also been forthcoming.Russian cooperation regarding the ATV programme will last many years as we are to build at least 5 of these subs and cannot indigenise every piece of eqpt. aboard and will need a lot of Russian eqpt. an sub-building technology.Even for periscopes (actually very sophisticated) for upgrading our Kilos,we are supposedly calling for tenders.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Aug 2009 19:37

negi - its not Austin -

onleeeee Shankar aka Shankarosky

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Aug 2009 21:17

Second negi's post! Friendship needs to remain as a friendship and a good one at that! But please do not make us slaves!!

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 29 Aug 2009 01:52

negi wrote:Shankar brothers can we please limit the RU bhakti and constant belittling of our scientific fraternity .

Actually it has come to this point that many have stopped taking him seriously

I suggest you not to stay far behind, in the game.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 29 Aug 2009 02:39

mandrake wrote:
negi wrote:Shankar brothers can we please limit the RU bhakti and constant belittling of our scientific fraternity .
Actually it has come to this point that many have stopped taking him seriously I suggest you not to stay far behind, in the game.

Whatever you folks write about Shankardada, reading his FB posts, I can say he is one heck of a guy. His stories on FB posts will add color to any mehfil.

atma · Post by **atma** » 29 Aug 2009 03:20

I second Bijushet, about Shankardada.

atma · Post by **atma** » 29 Aug 2009 03:28

Despite the moniker Shankerovksy BR members and he himself gives himself, he has an insight, and a point to make that is much valued. Having lurked for years, and been a BRF member for at least 3 years, I understand that his opinions create controversies, but I believe he has few peers when it comes to certain knowledge , insight and opinion about all we fret about.

I am not a voluminous poster, but I read a lot of posts. I have always respected Shankardada.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 29 Aug 2009 06:11

i think india tested russian made bombs in 1998 when its own design failed just to save its H&D. Now thats the intellectual dishonesty from indian scientists

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Aug 2009 07:15

tripathi wrote:i think india tested russian made bombs in 1998 when its own design failed just to save its H&D. Now thats the intellectual dishonesty from indian scientists

Huh?
No it was PRC made stuff. And like every wal mart shopper knows, 'made in china' isn't reliable.

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 29 Aug 2009 07:44

This is what happens when there is no credible official information.....

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 29 Aug 2009 07:53

you have all got it wrong. The maal is not ruski nor chinki, its wone hundrred bersent sivakaasi maal. Like all sivakaasi maal it needed a little time in the Sun before being fired, but because of cunning amriki satellites our great scientists did not do that and had to lit the batti in the darkness of yindoo caves which made it fizzle a lil bit, what big deal me no understand

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 29 Aug 2009 12:18

The GoI should buy the MRCA plane which is best for India.

Such a mentality is NOT anti-Russian or anti ANY country.

Is is purely PRO-Indian.

How long is India going to be fearful of BOTH the US and Russia?

As far as the consultancy for the Arihant goes, the consultants (I hope) have been paid for. Any future support, I am sure will be paid for.

BUT, I do hope India weans herself off from these guys ASAP.

I am more concerned about Indians growing up with this silly fear than the refusal for consultancy.

Agree 100% -subject to ground reality and resource availability and induction time frame a short critical analysis of how countries like US and Britain have treated us in past .We cannot afford to take 10 billion dollar decision in vacuum

According to me Mig 35 fits the bill best and hence the support based on todays geo political reality and not on what should have been desirable
Support for Russia is born out of deep desire to see India come out on top with the best deal possible
The reasons have been listed out -no point duplicating
Two countries have helped us achieve whatever technological maturity we have in aero space and weapons technology
they are Russia AND France
Cryogenic engine of present genre of GSLV is russian
Vikas(viking) engine of PSLV is french
Brahmos is eesntially a russian rocket (yakhont) with indian guidance system

Without making the list a long one
France and Russia need be encouraged to continue the symbiotic relationship -and what better way to encourage than buying thier equipment when we are spending the money any way

so either we buy Mig 35 or Rafale

Problem is Rafale is too expensive

So the choice comes down to Mig 35

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Aug 2009 13:36

The astonishing demand from France for another 700 million Euros (approx.$1 billion) for just escalation,to be added to the cost of the 6 Scorpenes costing $4.5,should be compared with the reported cost of the lease of two Akula-2+s for 10 years just $700 million! At the end of 10 years the subs will be offered to us at throwaway depreciated prices,therefore,even assuming that the actual cost will work out to around $0.5 billion for a 12000t Akula-2 SSGN with all its weaponry,we will be able to buy ( Akula-2+ SSGNs for the price of just 6 conventional Scorpenes of around 2000t without AIP! There sems to be no logic whatsoever to go ahead in full with this deal.We should instead simply reduce the number of Scorpenes to be built,and buy more Akula-2s from Russia with the money,plus spend the rest on the second line of convnentional subs,either Brahmos Amurs or German U-214s,both with AIP.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Aug 2009 13:55

The delay on Scorpene deal is from MDL side , it would have been smart to build the first 2 Scorpene in France and let these folks learn on the job and avoid delays , while the remaining 4 could be built at MDL , As far as AIP goes the IN does not seem to be keen for it for Scorpene , although they also say it may be included from 3 rd sub onward , but right not its uncertain.

But the 2nd line of sub will certainly have AIP , hopefully they go for a larger Scorpene based design with AIP and save a big headache on logistics and cost front for the nest 30 years.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 29 Aug 2009 14:10

Austin

agreed - AIP will become a mandatory requirement for IN form some time onwards -it has too many operational advantages to be overlooked .Peronally I prefer the german u-212type AIP using hydrogen fuel cell instead of MESMA tyoe using liquid oxygen and methanol -it is more noisy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Aug 2009 16:58

The problem with acquiring more Scorpenes is that they cannot accomodate Brahmos due to their design,which means that all that the sub can carry in the form of anti-sub or land attack missiles in sub-launched versions of Exocet,which are inferior to the Klub already in service with our Kilos! Moreover,if we acquire a Brahmos AIP sub with VLS lanchers,the silos/missiles could if ever required also carry an N-warhead,or even sub-sonic cruise missile swith a longer range like the Tomahawk,which we are supposedly developing.The development of micro-nukes by the US for use in future conflicts were the destruction is contained within a small area,and could be termed as "acceptable" use of a nuke,is one area where even AIP subs armed with missiles could play such a role.The US has converetd its OHIO SSBNs into Tomahawk carrying SSGNs,with approx 150 missiles carried in the huge missile silos that oonce carried ICBMs.

Since HDW is now off the blacklisted book,and we have 4 U-209 subs in service already,acquiring more of the type could be an attractive option and ending the Scorpene line within the earlier contracted price.The reasons for the two year delay must be spelt out,as France should've assisted us from the very first step of assembling/building the subs at MD.The deal certainly has a "fishy" smell to it.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 29 Aug 2009 18:03

tripathi wrote:i think india tested russian made bombs in 1998 when its own design failed just to save its H&D. Now thats the intellectual dishonesty from indian scientists

You keep posting this without attributing it to anything other than your own thoughts. Idle babbling will not be tolerated.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 29 Aug 2009 18:51

JaiS wrote:
tripathi wrote:i think india tested russian made bombs in 1998 when its own design failed just to save its H&D. Now thats the intellectual dishonesty from indian scientists
You keep posting this without attributing it to anything other than your own thoughts. Idle babbling will not be tolerated.

Tripathi Sir,
I agree with your observations. That is the only explaination that doesnt seem to leave any space for doubt, unmisfortunately the moderators here are intellectually dishonest and wont permit scientific debate ( like you and me are having)
We can discuss this in Benis failing which we can discuss this on You Tube under the video
The Truth about 1998

I will be using the username : Rakkitmard

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Aug 2009 19:14

Russia under the terms of its international nuclear proliferation treaties will never give anyone its N-knowhow.It made a huge mistake sharing its secrets with Communist China which rewarded it by betrying its friendship with an armed spat.Russia and the US have maintained their treaty committments scruproulously to the best of one's knowledge.The stationing of ABMs in Poland,a violation in spirit by the Bush-Cheneyite defence doctrine,spurred a robust response from Putin and Co.

It is highly unlikely that Russia "gave us" details or designs of N-weaponry.India had done it on its own a long time ago.All that was required was for us to test and validate our design.If we had indeed got the design for a bomb,it would've been first quietly tested in Russia,as the Pakis did with their Chinese firecracker,requiring no reason for us to test as was done at P-2.The N-tech cooperation for the Arihant is another matter.Even from this cooperation,we can see that there has been no deviation from Russia's international treaty obligations,as no nation has protested to us.France is also doing a similar job with its assistance to Brazil for its N-sub which they expect to arrive by 2020.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Aug 2009 19:14

Added concept drawings of the Arihant to the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant_class_submarine

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Aug 2009 19:17

Philip wrote:The problem with acquiring more Scorpenes is that they cannot accomodate Brahmos due to their design,which means that all that the sub can carry in the form of anti-sub or land attack missiles in sub-launched versions of Exocet,which are inferior to the Klub already in service with our Kilos! Moreover,if we acquire a Brahmos AIP sub with VLS lanchers,the silos/missiles could if ever required also carry an N-warhead,or even sub-sonic cruise missile swith a longer range like the

Well from what I understand , the IN has not asked for VLS capability for project india , but AIP capability from first sub onwards , this is mentioned in an interview to F Magazine i think December 2008 IN special.

Adding AIP + VLS cell to conventional submarine will make it of very large displacement and will have impact on other areas , like needing very powerful engine and as such has to be designed from scratch as it affects acoustic capability.

No country in the world has built such capabilty or demonstrated it , the russian have only advertised such capability that too for Amur 950 with VLS no AIP.

They have not demonstrated any AIP capability , although they claim to have Fuel cell like capability , but unlike Western AIP based on HDW Fuel Cell or French MESMA , the Russian capability as such is not proven as its not deployed , may be they don't need such capability.

Going for Russian option is a high risk option both on AIP and VLS front , and worst from IN prespective they will have to maintain and build logistic to operate 2 different type of SSK , and they also say the 3rd type will be Indian , so what we will operate 3 types of SSK ? Considering no where in the world they operate eastern and western type and opt for single type and build upon it.

So Project India will be a large submarine with built in AIP capability , and no VLS.

The reasons for the two year delay must be spelt out,as France should've assisted us from the very first step of assembling/building the subs at MD.The deal certainly has a "fishy" smell to it.

Well from what I understand they had to built the necessary infra from scratch for scorpene and MDL too their own sweet time , from what I know the delay is from MDL side.

The IN as usual wanted every submarine to be built at MDL and they also expected to be delivered on time , considering the complexity of the project and the MDL working style that was asking for moon.

Its a good lesson for IN now they will learn the Project India atleast 1 or 2 should be built abroad.

nash · Post by **nash** » 29 Aug 2009 20:11

So Project India will be a large submarine with built in AIP capability , and no VLS.

what is this PROJECT INDIA please elaborate....

I never heard about that, please also provide the link....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Aug 2009 20:27

The second line of submarine , P-75I ( I - India ) , I should have mentioned Project -75I

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 29 Aug 2009 20:29

Austin wrote:The delay on Scorpene deal is from MDL side

The cost escalation is from the French side, they seemed to have learned a few lessons from their Russian friends. If you allow yourself to be screwed once, that's an invitation for others to come join the party.

Sources said the Defence Acquisitions Council, headed by defence minister A K Antony, this month decided to approach the Cabinet Committee on Security to grant approval to the cost escalation of the French `MDL procured material (MPM) packages' from around 400 million Euros to 700 million Euros now.

The negotiations for these MPM packages, which include virtually all major systems connected with sensors, propulsion and the like, apart from the combat systems, have been stuck on the price issue for well over a year now.

"The Scorpene submarine hulls are being fabricated in MDL but there are no systems to put inside them. The French say the earlier price of 400 million Euros for the MPM packages was quoted when the contracts were inked in October 2005 and prices have doubled since then,'' said a source.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 946064.cms

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 30 Aug 2009 04:09

Now this is good:

The cost escalation is from the French side, they seemed to have learned a few lessons from their Russian friends. If you allow yourself to be screwed once, that's an invitation for others to come join the party.

Learned a few lessons from their Russian friends=France and Russia working together to "screw"us?
A very nice way to let the Ruskies take partial blame for things totaly unrelated to them.

Sort of captures things on BRF lately. Should be music for admin ears.
"thats the way aha aha I like it aha aha....."

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 30 Aug 2009 07:31

Shashank N wrote:A very nice way to let the Ruskies take partial blame for things totaly unrelated to them.

There is something called precedent...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2009 09:40

ManuJ wrote:"The Scorpene submarine hulls are being fabricated in MDL but there are no systems to put inside them. The French say the earlier price of 400 million Euros for the MPM packages was quoted when the contracts were inked in October 2005 and prices have doubled since then,'' said a source.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 946064.cms[/quote]

Yes my point is when the price was x in 2005 , why did it take such a long time for MDL to fabricate the hull and then procure MPM package , obviously they took their sweet time to construct the hull and then expected that when they order the MPM packages in 2009 they will get at 2005 prices since the contract was signed then.

They should have ordered the package immediately after signing the contract in 2005 to avoid cost escalation or have added a clause which would have said certain % of cost esclation on yearly basis , or better for MDL culture no cost escalation at all even though we order this at 2010