Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 15 Aug 2013 17:58

^^

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Dear Kit,

My apologies...I am usually never flippant but I did assume you are joking..... right?

Or perhaps you know something most people don't know. Would love to hear that especially of specific instances on how 'he knows what he is doing' ? From everything I have heard and seen this article is largely correct but I would love to stand corrected. But I do wonder in that case how come were are in the mess we are in.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3450
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 15 Aug 2013 18:15

suryag wrote:how was the russian nuke sub lifted out of deep sea by the CIA?


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

"Azorian" (erroneously called "Jennifer" after its Top Secret Security Compartment by the press)[2] was the code name for a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) project to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129 from the Pacific Ocean floor in the summer of 1974, using the purpose-built ship Hughes Glomar Explorer.[3] The 1968 sinking of the K-129 occurred approximately 1,560 nautical miles (2,890 km) northwest of Hawaii.[4] Project Azorian was one of the most complex, expensive, and secretive intelligence operations of the Cold War at a cost of about $800 million ($3.7 billion in 2013 dollars).

source : wiki

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Aug 2013 18:52

Howard Hughes supposedly built the Glomar Explorer for the CIA,It had a hold large enough to accomodate the sub and giant claws were sued to lift the sub.The "official",when details of the op. were revealed decades later,say part of the sub broke off and that the missiles/warheads etc. were lost.Funny,when there were no debris left on the seabed! The most likely scenario is that the sub was completely recovered,even if a section broke off it would've been recovered for the intel to be gleaned fro it,along with all the missiles and warheads.A few Russian sailors whose bodies were recovered were given a solemn burial,filmed for the Soviets.

Salvaging the sub is going to be far easier.It has sunk in the dockyard itself and should be lifted out very soon.It will then be possible to see whether there was an internal explosion outwards or external inwards and where it originated from.Some reports say that the water is being pumped out as of now,and that the task of locating the bodies of the watch crew,who couldn't have survived the intensity of the blast and fire,has become very difficult because a lot of eqpt. "has fused" because of the heat.Other earlier reports said that the sub had deformed,escape hatches too fused due to the blast/heat.There is no way that with such damage the sub can be rebuilt.It would be a double task of dismantling the sub,repairing/replacing the damaged hull and internal components and testing the same for defects after the explosion.Far easier and cheaper to build new sub.The sub had supposedly already logged "15,000km" in three missions after it had been recommissioned.

However,there is sadly a splendid opportunity to examine the damage to the sub from this blast and see what eqpt. if any has survived.It will be of enormous help in designing future subs. One saw after the Kursk tragedy how apart from the torpedo bow section,the rest of the sub after the sail was intact,testifying to the massive strength of Russian/Soviet subs.Some years ago I asked a veteran IN submariner who gad served on both the German U-boats and Foxtrot/Kilo classes,which he preferred.he said that the Greman subs were more comfortable,user friendly,but in war,the Russian subs which were much tougher,would be more difficult to sink.

One important factor will be to see whether there is unexploded munitions.One report said that a loose torpedo hit the other berthed sub (S'ratna?) but luckily did not explode.Had the entire stock of the "fully loaded" sub exploded ,it would've been even more catastrophic.There was enough munitions to sink over a dozen warships! The condition of the unexploded munitions ,which seems likely,is of prime importance.The entire dockyard basin should be scanned for sunken debris/munitions.It is also a miracle that little or no damage was caused to the other warships in the crowded dockyard.Normally,the carrier Viraat would've been berthed on the other seaward/side of the quay along with the fleet tankers.From pics there were no warships berthed opposite the stricken sub,another blessing in disguise as from the video clips,there were munitions exploding seaward.

Incidentally,there is a pic today (Hindu?) of a great achievement by Madras IIT developing an UUV,which looks rather like that developed by the Germans,which is now undergoing testing.Onc fully developed,the UUV would have great applications for mine detection,enemy underwater craft detection/harbour defence,mine laying,surveillance,etc.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3450
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 15 Aug 2013 19:25

Mumbai harbor definitely needs something like this, assuming it doesnt of course :mrgreen:

http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/sonar/dsit/


Coastal underwater surveillance system
Diver detection sonar

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_27444 » 15 Aug 2013 19:33

SaiK wrote:
Singha wrote:can a sub of such size be bodily lifted by a floating crane ?
even if the sub is sunk in 30feet water it seems impossible to reach in there in time.

such vessels do exist to execute tandem lifts but we dont seem to have a single one
http://hmc.heerema.com/content/fleet/
mainly they are used in offshore oil/gas industry. so 2000t is not a issue with these puppies.

dragging is a possibility... but at shore, we definitely need some ramps that gets hooked on to some geared pulley-chain system driven by some heavy pull mechanism.


Think out of the box dear Dr. Watson

1) the sub is close to berth
2) it is reachable by the wharf / Jetty


all you need is individual
floatation devices such as rubber doughtnuts hollow in which you pump high pressure air
put a number of the m along the the x axis of the sub

hook a crane to blown front part so as to float it or allow it to surface on its tail section ie propeller side with out scratching the bronze propeller


Finally after comple inspection

dis mantle piece by where ever possible or gas cut so that

1) Salvage for spares ( as Mother Russian is so reliable for spares)
2) to completely understand design , manufacture of the sub and its sub susb ( aka in Hindi all all systems)

this is god send oppportunity to learn such that those who sacrificed their lives does not go waste.

1) metturgy
2) welding technology
3) sequence of asembly
4) Spacing of susb subsystesms
5) explosive effect on the sub


Most importantly how it can be contained, isolated if it ever (God forbid) happens deep in underwater sea.

I have some ideas but ....

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Aug 2013 19:35

^if the hole made by the blast is small and repairable, then we can send an underwater welding team to patch the hole to a level that can withstand your high pressure air intake. but it is damn muddy water.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 15 Aug 2013 19:42

divers have worked in mumbai harbour regularly on other salvage jobs

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Aug 2013 19:43

From the available pics,the entire hull can be lifted in one piece.I'm sure that many in Bombay have seen Indian Kilos aboard special merchantmen being ferried to Russia for upgrading.The sub should then be placed in a covered dock,where it can be dissected in secrecy without prying sat. eyes,so that the casue of the explosions can be determined.

The Hindu editorial:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editori ... 023151.ece

A tragic loss

The sinking of INS Sindhurakshak, a Kilo-class diesel-electric submarine of the Indian Navy with enormous loss of life is an unprecedented setback to the national effort to strengthen undersea defence capabilities. Defence Minister A.K. Antony has correctly described it as the greatest tragedy in recent times. His department must get down to the task of determining what caused the explosion on board a vessel that has only recently returned after a two-year refit at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Russia. It should be possible to retrieve the damaged submarine, since it sank at the Mumbai dockyard. The wrecking of an important submarine capable of carrying cruise missiles is undoubtedly a matter of great concern, but it is the death of a large number of submariners who work in some of the most difficult conditions that makes the incident extremely tragic. Incidents in the past have been much less damaging. Some of them involved minor collisions between submarines and accidents with ships. For the Ministry of Defence, this is an alarm call to ensure that safety in design and operation is given top priority in the Navy’s ongoing programme to induct six Scorpene-class submarines. Regrettably, indigenous efforts at repairing and retrofitting Kilo-class submarines have not been successful. Recently, Mr. Antony spoke of adequate funding having been included in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Plan periods for the “Project 75 – India” submarine programme. The inquiry into the Sindhurakshak incident will potentially indicate design and safety aspects that must be strengthened without compromise.

What has happened to India’s submarine is of global significance because there is a downward trend in the number of incidents involving such vessels since the mid-1970s. In fact, fewer vessels have sunk due to explosions in recent decades, than due to flooding and collisions. A notable exception was the explosion that sank the Russian vessel, Kursk, killing 118 men in the Barents Sea 13 years ago. It is possible that the explosion on the Sindhurakshak, apparently intensified by the presence of munitions, was caused by the failure of safety systems linked to its power mechanism and batteries, or due to lapses in standard operating procedures. Clearly, the lessons from this disaster will be vitally important for the safety of the nine other diesel-electric submarines of the same class that the Navy lists as ‘active.’ Equally, there is bound to be greater interest in the Naval Materials Research Laboratory project to design a propulsion technology that is “air independent.” In other words, it could lower explosion risk from submarine power plant gas leaks, and help vessels stay underwater longer. For the Navy, though, this is a time of trial as it sifts through the wreckage of what was till yesterday a symbol of great pride.

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_27444 » 15 Aug 2013 19:45


On June 20, 1974, the Glomar Explorer, a new 36,000-ton ship fitted with a tall derrick amidships and towing a submersible barge the size of a football field, sailed from Long Beach, Calif., toward an area in the Pacific 750 miles northwest of Hawaii. Publicly proclaimed to be a special vessel built by Howard Hughes to mine mineral deposits from the ocean floor, the Glomar was actually on a CIA mission approved by the White House. Its code name: Project Jennifer. Its aim: to salvage a Soviet submarine that had plunged 16,000ft....



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c34LriAj



When the Glomar Explorer story first broke 21 months ago, the Central Intelligence Agency did a purposeful job of disclosing as little information as possible. In a series of briefings, then CIA Director William Colby confided to reporters that the U.S. had used a large vessel, reportedly built for Howard Hughes, to try to retrieve a 1961-vintage Soviet submarine that had sunk northwest of Hawaii. Unfortunately, the Golf-class sub cracked apart as it was being hoisted. Only the forward third was recovered. Colby did not say what it contained, but any knowledgeable...



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c34csO54




Image


It all began with an accident. Some time in 1968, somewhere in the northwest Pacific, the Soviet submarine surfaced to recharge its batteries. There was an explosion, perhaps caused by a spark that ignited trapped gases in the hull Before a single member of the crew could escape, the craft plummeted to the ocean floor about three miles below. But not to an unknown grave. U.S. Navy devices picked up the stricken submarine's last throes and were able to place the wreckage within a ten-mile-square area. The Soviet navy was not so...



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c35lkWTH

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2013 20:06

I have been thinking a lot about that youtube video. The flames sequence tells its own story and has the signature of what igntited. The initial yellow flame was some carbonaceous material and was a fire. The blue-white flash is the hydrogen exploding. The subsequent yllow flash is the ammo exploding.

So what casued the initial yellow flame which triggered the event?

And how long after the weapon on loading did the first sign of yellow flame occur?

The reports said that the weapons were being loaded till 10:30pm.

When was the first flame observed?


Were all the electrical grounding procedures being observed while the weapons were being loaded onboard to preclude ESD build-up?

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 15 Aug 2013 20:30

Folks, regarding the recovery of submarine from the harbour floor:

Recall the recovery of 3000 Ton INS Vindhyagiri

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ins-v ... ea/806870/

...

After nearly five months under water below Berth No 5 in South Breakwater at the Naval Dockyard, warship INS Vindhyagiri was hauled up almost completely by late Tuesday, thanks to the painstaking efforts of a large team of salvors and a giant floating crane.

...

While the floating crane, Gal Installer, has been stationed nearby for several weeks, sources said work on pumping out water from the submerged warship and pumping in air permitted the crane to start operations only on Monday. The Gal Installer is a construction barge with a pedestal mounted crane having a capacity of 330 tonnes. The Malaviya Four support vessel was assisting in operations. Sources said they expect the warship to be moved completely in a couple of days and then washed — it is extremely muddy after months of being under water — before being taken to dry dock for repairs. ....



Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval Dock

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2013 20:57

Collect all news items here.

ramana

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Aug 2013 21:04

ramana wrote:I have been thinking a lot about that youtube video. The flames sequence tells its own story and has the signature of what igntited. The initial yellow flame was some carbonaceous material and was a fire. The blue-white flash is the hydrogen exploding. The subsequent yllow flash is the ammo exploding.

So what casued the initial yellow flame which triggered the event?

And how long after the weapon on loading did the first sign of yellow flame occur?

The reports said that the weapons were being loaded till 10:30pm.

When was the first flame observed?


Were all the electrical grounding procedures being observed while the weapons were being loaded onboard to preclude ESD build-up?


good questions ramana.. also, consider the option of sabotage not being ruled out, so there can be links between your questions on the start of first flame, and the events that lead to it possibly during weapons being loaded.

your ESD build up could be a possibility when you consider current water-ambient-temperature differences in mumbai (guess)?

so, operational mistakes is one aspect, and any paki mole on paki independence day working in mumbai!?!?!? that would put us really black faced now.. but just throwing it up for questioning only.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 509
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SNaik » 15 Aug 2013 21:17

There is a neglected source of an explosion and fire on a sub - air regeneration banks B-64. Most of them are stockpiled in engine room, but quite a few are also kept in torpedo room and officer's mess.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2013 21:22

I would say most probable cause is the ESD sparking the inital flame, which ignited the prevailing battery gases and in turn exploded the warhead.

ESD build up occurs if more than the optimum number of tries are exceeded to load the weapon as usually they have nylon/elastomer pads in the loading tube.

Sabotage etc., is good to not rule out, but is most likely remote, considering that its a naval dockyard, the loading personnel are navy personnel who are screened and vetted even more throughly for the submarine service and we have an obivous cause.


So atleast on BR we should let the facts speak for themselves.

I note after the first Shiv Aroor post on the Club being loaded no more is being said.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby chaanakya » 15 Aug 2013 21:40

Fire Officer complains: Navy didn't give us details


After a six-hour operation to douse the INS Sindhurakshak fire, the Mumbai Fire Brigade said Wednesday it would have been better placed to save lives if the Navy had provided more information.

"We carried out our fire-fighting operations routinely and tried our best to minimise loss of life and property. The Navy did not give us detailed information on how many people were trapped inside. They just asked us to douse the fire. Perhaps if we were given full information, we could have planned our operation in such a way that more lives could have been saved,"
said Chief Fire Officer Suhas Joshi.

Sixteen fire engines and 10 water tankers were sent to the Naval dockyard on Tuesday night. Officials said the fire engines found it difficult to navigate their way quickly to the spot due to the strict security clearances.


"We had no idea about the interiors of a submarine or even the basic structure in terms of the engineering, which could have helped us contain the flames more effectively. Our experience is limited to fire-fighting in highrises or huge factories," said an official.


Addressing a press conference, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral D K Joshi said, "The Naval fire brigade has substantial capacity and is capable of handling such a fire. The fire engines from the Mumbai Fire Brigade were kept on stand-by and were allowed in later, after seeing the extent of the fire."

But P S Rahangdale, Deputy Chief Fire Officer of the Mumbai Fire Brigade, said: "The Naval fire-fighting unit is sufficient for its base here in case of minor mishaps. You cannot expect the Navy to maintain an entire force similar to the fire-fighting strength needed for a city like Mumbai — it obviously has its limitations."

Recalling that a surface warship, INS Vindhyagiri, had caught fire at the Naval dockyard in 2011, Fire Brigade officials noted that not much had been done to improve the fire-fighting mechanism in the area since then.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby NRao » 15 Aug 2013 21:44

Addressing a press conference, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral D K Joshi said, "The Naval fire brigade has substantial capacity and is capable of handling such a fire. The fire engines from the Mumbai Fire Brigade were kept on stand-by and were allowed in later, after seeing the extent of the fire."


I just hope that this man is not spiking the drink any more than it needs to be. Granted he is the CNS.

Need to see something great come out of this terrible tragedy. Let us start with some simple, old fashioned honesty.

Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Kapil » 15 Aug 2013 22:14

LIST OF DUTY PERSONNEL INSIDE INS SINDHURAKSHAK
AT THE TIME OF INCIDENT

New Delhi: Aug 15, 2013
Saravana 24, 1935
1. INS Sindhurakshak had 18 personnel on duty inside the submarine at the time of the accident. The list of personnel is given below:-

S No. Name of Officers Rank
01 NIKHILESH PAL LTCDR
02. ALOK KUMAR LTCDR
03. R VENKITARAJ LTCDR
S No. Name of Sailors Rank
04. SANJEEV KUMAR PO UW I
05. KC UPADHYAY PO UW I
06. TIMOTHY SINHA PO UW I
07. KEWAL SINGH LS UC I
08. SUNIL KUMAR SEA I UW III
09. DASARI PRASAD MECH(R) 2
10. LIJU LAWRENCE LEMP
11. RAJESH TOOTIKA LME
12. AMIT K SINGH STD I
13. ATUL SHARMA SEA I
14. VIKAS E SEA I
15. NARUTTAM DEURI ME I
16. MALAY HALDAR EMR II
17. VISHNU V RO II
18. SEETARAM BADAPALLI LS RP I
___________________________________________________________________
PVS/AK 13/2013

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 15 Aug 2013 23:08

here is a report talking about safety aspects,

INS Sindhurakshak tragedy: Veteran submariners suspect sabotage angle

earlier news reports suggest that there was a whoosh sound before the first explosion, there was also a mention of recovering a booster and frame of a 'missile', so why can't this be a unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) deployed by a foreign agency? there is no surrounding net to keep out frogmen so nothing blocks a lurking UUV

it would be easy to cross check the recovered 'missile' parts with the Klub system, the only missile system onboard

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby NRao » 15 Aug 2013 23:15

earlier news reports suggest that there was a whoosh sound before the first explosion, there was also a mention of recovering a booster and frame of a 'missile', so why can't this be a unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) deployed by a foreign agency? there is no surrounding net to keep out frogmen so nothing blocks a lurking UUV


If an external explosion the rupture should be inwards, else it should be outwards. ?????

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 15 Aug 2013 23:24

There were multiple explosions ultimately, its a cook off scenario however the above article argues against any cook off unless armed

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 15 Aug 2013 23:52

more news

Sindhurakshak tragedy: Rescue ops hampered, fate of naval personnel not known

Three explosions and an ensuing fire shortly after midnight on Thursday on INS Sindhurakshak


Navy officials said there were three explosions, one small followed by two large, on Sindhurakshak within a few minutes of each other. The impact of the explosions was such that another submarine, Sindhuratna, which was berthed nearby also caught fire.


Navy Chief Admiral D.K. Joshi, said on Wednesday that there was no indication of sabotage yet in the fire on INS Sindhurakshak. “Sabotage isn’t ruled out, though prima facie it doesn’t (look likely). There are ships of many nationalities at the harbour, but the blast occurred on board, t-at goes against the sabotage theory,” he said.


“Forensic evidence will then be gathered to find out the cause of the first explosion. The three officers who got saved are in a state of shock but their and the statements of the fire-fighting staff will be recorded to find out what they saw initially,” Admiral Joshi added.


The Navy chief said that were was a lot of ordinance and other material on the ship that could have triggered the explosions. “Apart from the explosives, there was fuel, oxygen and hydrogen bottles on the ship. The two major safety monitoring units — both manual and automatic — have malfunctioned and it is a big dent for the Navy. The BOI will consist of inspectoratelevel members and a submarine commando,“ he said.

Allaying fears of the missiles and other explosives on board the submarine,he said, “As per conventional wisdom, after the vessel is submerged for so long it would have (been) rendered safe,” he said.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby chaanakya » 15 Aug 2013 23:58

Probable Causes Listed so far

1. Hydrogen built up due to battery charging
2. ESD :not following SOP
3.Fuel leak, oxidizer, peroxide, leaking torpedo fuel
4. Cigarette
5. Sabotage

First four are internal and examination of wrackage would clearly indicate that.
Last one is external. That is possible if security is breached.. Egg plastered. Too bad it would look. Better to blame dead man just as in Ari crashes, blame it on dead pilot.
But it would also be easy to point out external explosion if it happened.

All probable causes should be ruled out fairly quick before going to RCA.

ct alert/ This Navy Dockyard is not far from Colaba and what we forget is that Kasab and his party landed at Kolivada colony in Colaba undetected.

He came on Wednesday, got hanged on Wednesday and this event happened on Wednesday.

Another point is that both commercial and naval uses same shipping lane .if entries were restricted INS Vindhyagiri would not have collided with M V Nordlake, Security from Seaside may not be what it is from port side.

/ct off

Always better to rule that out thoroughly. COI will no doubt do a professional job. CNS indicted that report would come out in four weeks so we better wait for it.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2013 01:45

On ESD, ramana, wouldn't there be proper discharging /grounding circuits designed? do we know about the designs on INS sindhurkshak on these lines?

========

The submarine consists of six watertight compartments separated by transverse bulkheads in a pressurised double-hull. This design and the submarine's good reserve buoyancy lead to increased survivability if the submarine is holed, even with one compartment and two adjacent ballast tanks flooded.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/


===

The Russian Kilo class submarine has been a success story in both domestic and international markets. 4 such subs were completed since 1982. 17 such submarines are in operation with the Russian Navy, 12 with China’s People’s Liberation Army navy (PLAN) and ten with the Indian Navy. Other operators include Algeria (4) and Iran (3), Romania (1) and Poland (1). The Admirality Shipyard is currently building six Project 636M subs for Vietnam. The first will be launched August 28, 2012. Delivery is expected this year, following a series of trials at sea. In 2008 Vietnam signed a US$2 billion deal to buy the six Project 636M Kilo class submarines from Russia. All subs are scheduled for delivery by 2016
http://defense-update.com/20120817_improved_kilo.html



=====

It has also been provided with some Indian-made systems, including a hydro-acoustic “USHUS” complex, a CCS-MK radio-communication system and Porpoise Electronic Support Measures.

We have designed and built an advanced and safe AIP that generates hydrogen onboard and enables the submarine to stay underwater for much longer time,” Mr. Dyachkov said.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 564571.ece
:(

=========

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Subm ... Class.html
An engine change is probable during major refits in Russia which started in 1997, with INS Sindhuvir. A German-designed, Indian-built main battery, with a five year life has replaced the Russian batteries in all the vessels. Battery cooling has been improved as a result of the change.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby putnanja » 16 Aug 2013 04:18

Profile of a few soldiers involved in the tragedy ...

One too dedicated to leave, one too poor to study

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby putnanja » 16 Aug 2013 04:24

Rescue divers yet to enter submarine

...
The navy has now strategised two sets of groups — working on eight-hour shifts — for rescue and salvage. According to officials, divers have been able to access only the vertical space inside the conning tower and have not been able to open the second hatch at the bottom of the tower which opens to the pressure hull, the main body of the submarine. "The heat of the explosion has melted parts of the internal hull deforming the submarine hatches and preventing access to compartments," read an official statement from Press Information Bureau (defence wing).

The submarine — with six compartments — has two hulls with a gap of five metres between the outer capsule and the pressure hull. The navy's rescue team is now trying methods to gain access into the pressure hull even as the salvage team looks for cracks and breaches which could have led to water ingress.

...

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby putnanja » 16 Aug 2013 04:29

A standout even in its high class

Even within the fleet of 10 Kilo class submarines, the Sindhurakshak always stood out as one of the most potent underwater platforms. It also had two unique firsts — the first submarine in which an Indian head of state sailed (2006) and the first Indian vessel to travel under ice (earlier this year).
....


Egyptian Navy rescued Sindhurakshak in April

...
Sources said the Sindhurakshak, which was returning after a major refit in Russia, was on the surface in shallow water near Alexandria when it was hit by bad weather. Help was sought from the port authorities in Alexandria but they refused to send tugs due to the serious weather conditions.

As the submarine could not even submerge to escape the storm due to the shallow water, an emergency call was made to the Egyptian Navy, after the intervention of the Ministry of External Affairs. The Egyptian Navy then deployed its latest tugs.

"It was an extremely difficult operation to tow the submarine safely as the severe storm made rescue operations very risky. The very professional job by the Egyptians saved the day," said an official.
...

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 16 Aug 2013 04:50

Sindhurakshak is probably the first IN sub with the conventional land attack capability, due to the Klub system, this 'accident' dents that atleast for the time being. It could also be a technical issue.

Nirbhay will have to be developed into all variants like the Klub system, meaning torpedo tube launched anti shipping, land attack variants except perhaps an anti-sub version.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2013 04:58

Are there any communication devices inside that confirms no living people signature? this is all lessons for future designs.. how best we can equip men and get them interconnected to families... in the sub, something like every section of the hull being enabled with all kinds of sonic, and electronic communication devices. at least when they are on surface, there can be full microwave connectivity.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vina » 16 Aug 2013 05:36

tsarkar wrote: own words, Varunastra uses silver zinc batteries. http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/feb07/feb07.pdf
250 kW Silver Oxide-Zinc Battery...The battery, which is used for heavyweight torpedo propulsion… Composite structural shell development ... (battery shell for Varunastra, and Taksha torpedoes)


Sorry, got the name wrong. DRDO has a thermal torpedo program called Shakti, with a 500 kw


Indian submarine launched torpedoes are either German for Type 209/1500, or Soviet for EKM submarines. German torpedoes are battery powered & simultaneously anti ship & anti submarine. Soviet torpedoes in service are TEST-71 series, battery powered, submarine launched, anti-submarine, SET-65E battery powered, ship & submarine launched, anti-submarine and 53-65KE Kerosene Oxygen turbine powered, ship & submarine launched, anti-ship. This has a gyro wake homing system, immune to sonar countermeasures.

Submarines are slower than surface ships & much slower than helicopters or MPA. Torpedoes have lower ranges compared to missiles. Hence submarines are vulnerable to counterattack if detected.
Udaygiri in 2008.

The latest German torpedoes the Pakis have selected for the Agosta are thermal ones. The biggest and baddest types the world over are thermals!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2013 06:21

SaiK, First all the possible technical reasons should be discounted before the sabotage one. If you look at the sequence of the fires it is telling a story.
A low flame, then a bluish white flash and fianlly a yellow fireball.
First find out why the first one happened for it triggered the others.

By blaming sabotage one rules out the fixable causes.


ESD is quite innocuous monster.

Just pushing metal into plastic 3-4 times will build up charge which discharges at the most vulnerable contacts.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby VikramS » 16 Aug 2013 07:10

That swoosh sound thing is consistent with some propellent driven rocket type device going first. Very likely it was something on the sub. It however does not rule out the possibility of an RPG or some other missile hitting the sub. Tragic all along.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6703
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby habal » 16 Aug 2013 07:16

the Chinese subs have developed capabilities to sneak in very near to the coast without being detected. They fired a ballistic missile after sneaking in right next to US west coast undetected, check here it was something the soviet never managed to do. So if in that case they can fire a ballistic missile, here they could have fired a torpedo.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby krishnan » 16 Aug 2013 07:56

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 852621.cms

MUMBAI: Veteran submariners are suggesting that the Navy should not rule out the possibility of sabotage in the sinking of INS Sindhurakshak, even as indications are emerging that the vessel was preparing for "a war patroll" with armed torpedoes and cruise missiles close to Pakistani shores.


Their suggestion that the just-ordered naval board of inquiry (BoI)—chaired by a senior officer from the submarine wing—should thoroughly probe the sabotage angle stems from the fact that warheads of the torpedoes and missiles have several layers of security features built in to avoid inadvertent blasts aboard the vessel.

"The warheads, whether heavy torpedo warheads or relatively smaller missile warheads, are designed with highest levels of inbuilt safety. These multi-layered measures added together ensure almost foolproof levels of safety," said Dean Mathew, a former Navy Commander and research fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), who was a guided weapons specialist.

Mathew and several other submarine veterans said the possibility of a "cook off", where warheads start exploding under high temperature, too, is almost impossible. Submarines like INS Sindhurakshak have mechanisms such as sprinklers that get activated in case temperature in the torpedo bay shoots up.

"So this should have worked if there was a fire in the battery compartment beneath and the temperature was shooting up in the torpedo bay above," a veteran said. For TNT, which is the main explosive filling in a torpedo, just high temperature is not enough to cause an explosion under normal circumstances. The exception could be if TNT is expired, and its chemical structure has become unstable.

Based on their own personal experiences, these veterans are arguing that explanations for the tragedy have to be more than simple answers of material failure or standard operating procedures (SOPs) not being followed. Given the history of INS Sindhurakshak, the first explosion could be fuelled by hydrogen gas fuelled from the battery compartment. However, they suspect that the subsequent explosions—given the enormity and scale—are almost certainly some warheads— either of the combat torpedoes or missiles stored onboard. "The fact that these explosions ruptured the hulls of the submarine and sank it strongly points to the warheads exploding as they are meant to do exactly the same when used against an enemy submarine or ship," one former officer said.

Even when a submarine is out on a war patrol, the exploder unit, which triggers the warhead explosion in a torpedo, is stored separately from the warhead and assembled into it only on explicit orders from the commanding officer to "arm" the torpedo in preparation for an imminent war situation. The exploder unit is never mated with the torpedo in the harbour, while it is preparing for patrol.

The next level of safeties are that even with the exploder unit assembled, the unit gets active only once the torpedo is launched from the submarine and travelled out a safe distance away from the submarine. There are many more levels of inbuilt safety nets that make sure that the warhead doesn't go off just like that, veterans argue.

In case of missiles on board, their safety and arming unit (SAU) ensures that the warhead is not ready for explosion unless the missile is powered, launched and travelled a safe distance away. These information are fed to the missile by the submarine's combat information console, it can even be mimicked to make the missile feel that it is ready. If a missile has exploded, the question is, "did anyone get any of the missiles onboard 'ready' inadvertently or otherwise?" asks a submariner.

Another officer asked why was that the first explosion and fire couldn't be brought under control? "Clearly there is a human element that was involved directly or indirectly," he said. Another former submariner pointed out that the recent explosions onboard Indian submarines — on the same submarine and on INS Sindhuvijay — were both limited. On Sindhurakshak one sailor had lost his life in 2010 and in the case of Sindhuvijay an officer was injured. "The warheads doesn't go off like that," he argued.

Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Indrajit » 16 Aug 2013 07:58

As I've already stated sabotage should be the primary factor in the investigation,all the sequences tells a story.The most potent platform which was being prepared for a "War Patrol" off the paki coast,the date 14th August(paki independence) and was done deliberately one day before our independence day and last but not the least the mysterious "Whoosh" sound which even the navy has no clue.I've seen cruise missiled being fired,it surely does not make a whoosh sound, that sound is typical for RPG seried even Carl Gustav does not make such sound.I'm saying all these because of the pathetic state of security in and around the Naval Dockyard,imagine the Cheetah camp nearby where 70% of the settlers are from the minority community and are hostile,a group of 5-6 NSSG commandoes can easily accomplish the task being covertly deployed there,does anyone recollect of the ISI DG Shuja Pasha boasting of 1000 targets in India?This is JMT I wish all my assumptions are proved otherwise but the concern remains.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2013 08:07

we need a super crane like this to lift it off to surface:
http://enr.construction.com/products/eq ... cranes.asp

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Philip » 16 Aug 2013 08:37

Every time I'm in the water off the Gateway,I shudder at the vulnerability of the naval base.While we will have to wait for the BOI to give us its findings needless speculation can poison the air.If it was sabotage,and purely for academic purposes,this is perhaps why it could be so.The date is the first clue ,an act committed on the eve of India's Independence Day.We have always in the past had terror acts from the other side at this time.Secondly,intel about the base,state of readiness of warships,etc.,is very easy given the large number of tall blgs. overlooking the base,plus the fact that the D.Co. runs crime in the city.He being firmly a Paki asset would be able to use the local networks to glean detailed info of ship and sub movements.If so,it is a very "scary" situ as a former IN Adm. said.Add to this is that our mortal enemies know that this is the most vulnerable point of the Indian armed forces,not just the weakest link in the Navy's,defences,the shortage of subs,which have to meet the PLAN's increasing sub activity off our shores where "22 contacts" were made last year,including that of nuclear subs near the A&N islands.So sabotage could be one of the reasons for the tragedy that must be examined.

Secondly,in about 3 decades of Kilos being operated by several navies worldwide,such an incident hasn't happened ever.In fact,such an incident involving any sub at port has never happened including the IN in its entire history of operating subs.This is the worst tragedy in the IN's entire history,the Khukri was an old WW2 light frigate underequipped for modern ASW warfare and the Andamans Petya class FFL was obsolete,in very poor hull condition and truly shouldn't have been sent out on the exercise.

This is a unique case where navies worldwide will be having a very hard look.Veteran submariners in the post above,have described the high level of safety involved in handling sub munitions and how it is almost impossible for an incident like this to happen.Incidents at sea have been plentiful though.The Kursk was lost due to a faulty torpedo.The same was most likely for the loss of the Thresher."Rogue" torpedo incidents have been recorded,battery leaks and explosions,fires also involving mostly early model Russian nuclear subs and the RN's nuclear subs navigational errors causing them to run aground.A US sub hit an underwater rock supposedly unmarked on the charts.Oz's Collins class has been plagued with problems. In contrast to other types,the Kilo class has been one of the most reliable and cost-effective conventional subs in the world.SS our veteran submariners have said,there are several automatic fire safety devices that should normally function in case a fire occurs. The sub had just returned from its refit and upgrade,safety audit was done,it had competed 3 missions,made over 1000 hrs dived,travelled over 20,000km,and had experienced no major problem at all,barring the stormy weather experienced off the Egyptian coast.In other global air accidents,even nuclear bombs have been dropped/lost and did not detonate.Unravelling this tragedy is going to be a difficult task for the IN's BOI.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Prem » 16 Aug 2013 09:40

If Navy Enquiry find any indication of Paki involvement than Arihanta should get its first namesake mission.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6703
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby habal » 16 Aug 2013 10:02

Pakis do not have wherewithal to handle fallout of such rogue mission. They do not have adequate protection against retaliation to their scarce naval assets. All our critical naval assets need to be removed from mumbai asap to more secure locations. Nothing can be ruled out at the moment.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Austin » 16 Aug 2013 10:06

Submarine's twin hulls contained fire, reduced losses

Had it been any other submarine than one of the Sindhughosh or Kilo class that went up in flames late on Tuesday night, the damage at the Mumbai dock would have been massive, potentially devastating for nearby ships as well as buildings that house the Western Naval Command.

When the INS Sindhurakshak — the most modern of the Kilo class in service with India — suffered the explosion, the submarine contained the massive impact within its double hull structure. So massive was the impact that the entire interior of the vessel got sealed due to the heat and pressure generated from at least two explosions that were recorded.

Unlike most conventional submarines that comprise a single pressure hull within which all compartments, systems and quarters are housed, the Russian origin Kilo class had an outer hull as well, designed specifically to withstand blasts. The twin hulls ensured that the impact did not escape the vessel, but came at the cost of the men on board who most likely did not survive the initial blast.

The Navy on Thursday released the names of all personnel on board the Sindhurakshak: Lt Commander Nikhilesh Pal, Lt Commander Alok Kumar, Lt Commander R Venkitraj, Sanjeev Kumar, K C Upadhyay, Timothy Sinha, Kewal Singh, Sunil Kumar, Dasari Prasad, Liju Lawrence, Rajesh Tootika, Amit K Singh, Atul Sharma, Vikas E, Naruttam Deuri, Malay Haldar, Vishnu V and Seetaram Badapall.

Sources said that if a single hull submarine had suffered the explosion that sunk the Sindhurakshak — India's other class of Shishumar is single hulled — the impact would have engulfed surrounding warships and submarines, causing massive casualties. The ruptured hull would have also thrown out the heavy armament load in the warship, causing potential explosions in the surrounding area.

"The Mumbai dock is one of the most congested areas where warships are placed. The large number of ships and submarines in a small place make it very vulnerable to accidents. There is perhaps no other place in the world where warships are docked so close to each other," said an officer. Immediately after the explosions on the submarine, the Navy moved out all its warships from the dock to ensure their safety.

There have been at least three significant accidents at the Mumbai naval harbour in the last four years, mostly due to the congested sea lanes, given the heavy commercial traffic in the area. In June 2010, two Navy submarines — INS Sindhuratna and INS Sindhukesari — were involved in an accident when one of them grazed the other at a very low speed in the harbour, resulting in minor damage to both the vessels.

The biggest accident before Tuesday night was in January, when the INS Vindhyagiri, a heavily armed frigate, went down at the Mumbai harbour after a collision with merchant vessel M V Nordlake.

According to sources, the Mumbai dock is so congested that at times three submarines have to be docked next to each other due to lack of space. In the case of the Sindhurakshak too, it was docked with the Sindhuratna when the accident took place. The double hull contained the explosion, giving rescue teams enough time to remove the Sindhuratna that suffered only minor damage to its casing.

"We shudder to think what would have happened if the Sindhurakshak was docked on the outer side and the Sindhuratna was caught between the burning submarine and the dock side. It would have been very difficult to extricate the vessel," the officer added.

The only solution, officials said, is to decongest the Mumbai harbour by moving out warships to other bases on the western coast. However, due to lack of planning and paucity of resources, there has been no development of large naval bases to house new warships. The Karwar base in Karnataka, which is currently being expanded, is the one place where the Navy will move out its warships from Mumbai in the near future.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests