Project 75 & Submarine Options

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Jul 2005 23:06

Neethan,

URL? I suspect that is an older article than what we have today.

Shanker,

LM will not have as much jobs. Flacons - if at all (I expect the Hornets) - will be built in India.

WRT to tenders, IF GoI gets to that phase, it will never end. And, the tail will be waging the dog.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 11 Jul 2005 09:27

big news bhailog:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050711/a ... 974646.asp

Submarine cost

Cherbourg (France), July 10 (PTI): France today offered to absorb the increase in costs due to inflation in the much-delayed multi-billion deal to make Scorpene submarines in India.


French defence major Armaris also assured expertise if the Indian Navy wanted to carry out “significant changes” in the design of the submarine to install an air independent propulsion system, called the Mesma, and to add a new weapons system in the submarine,
billed as the world’s most silent killer machine.


“We are offering revisable and adjustable rates to level off cost escalation caused by delay in finalisation of the deal,” said Pierre Legros, the chairman of Armaris.



Legros also indicated that the company was open to making adjustments in the pricing, estimated to run into seven billion euros.
He said the inflation level in Europe was down to its lowest level and the price escalation problem could be sorted out amicably

----
time to squeeze ther germans on semi equipment, electro optics, materials science, MTU (sell us Europak and license production even for 124).

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1204
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 11 Jul 2005 12:17

French defence major Armaris also assured expertise if the Indian Navy wanted to carry out “significant changes” in the design of the submarine to install an air independent propulsion system, called the Mesma, and to add a new weapons system in the submarine, billed as the world’s most silent killer machine.



What could be a new weapon system ?

---> Naval SCALP ?
---> Brahmos ?

I would love this Stealth Submarine + Supersonic ASCM combo.

Give us full ToT for exocet so that we exactly know how to counter them and in the process make paki billion dollar Agosta programme futile.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 11 Jul 2005 12:53

I think he meant Klub if India wants a bigger stick than Exocet. If each Exocet consumes a full torpedo rack it makes sense to use Klub instead. if Exocet can be shoehorned two per rack in series, makes sense to go for both to increase the weapons count. with AIP subs can hang out much longer and pays to have more weapons.

buying the MM40 exocet must however be after an agreement not to sell the same to TSPN.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1204
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 11 Jul 2005 13:00

Singha wrote:I think he meant Klub if India wants a bigger stick than Exocet. If each Exocet consumes a full torpedo rack it makes sense to use Klub instead.


Singha, but russians might cause some problems. Being upset over loosing submarine bid they might create fuss that will delay the procurement. Remember their non cooperative attitude at the time of tri lateral deal of Phalcon AWACS. We will loose time if we get russians involved in this. Plus they will try to make as much money as they want.

buying the MM40 exocet must however be after an agreement not to sell the same to TSPN.


I agree with this. And neither blackshark torpedos. That will leave TSP toothless as time progresses.

Also, does TSP needs french permission to arm Agostas with Harpoon ? If thats true we can also pressurize french to deny that. After all we will be buying 126 Mirages, Scorpene from them... they need to look out for our interests.

vipin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 09 Apr 2004 11:31
Location: california

Postby vipin » 11 Jul 2005 13:39

But if our second submarine line is based on amur 1650 then the russians are getting more buisness. I don't think they would complaint in that scenario. We do need another 8 scorpecene and 8-10 amur's

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1204
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 11 Jul 2005 14:04

Are you sure that there are some chances that second line of submarine could be Akula-2 or Amur ?

Project 75 is supposed to be conventionally powered submarine. Isn't it ? and Armur is a nuclear powered submarine.

ATV is being indigenously designed so how come russian Akula's come into picture ? I am kinda lost as to where do they fit in the picture given the fact that we are currently pursuing two submarine projects - Project 75 or ATV category.

Between I would like to see Scorpene fitted with

http://www.dcn.fr/us/produits/interface.html#8
Submarine Air Defence,

DCN is developing an air defence concept for submarines.

The system is based on sea-proven technologies and missiles fired from the submarine's torpedo launch tubes.

The system, comprising its own sensors and combat subsystem, enables a submerged submarine to detect and attack ASW helicopters (whether hovering or patrolling) and maritime patrol aircraft.

The concept represents a cost-effective deterrent against airborne ASW resources.


--This is to take care of Pukees P3C orions.

--Brahmos and Exocet for their F-22 frigates they are in process getting from china and other PN surface vessels.

--BlackShark torpedoes to take care of Agostas.

All this power packed into a stealthy body. Ahhh! that will make it one hell of a hunter killer submarine.

Plus india can add some special features like datalinks with Naval AWACS, Surface Ships, Space Assets and Air borne fixed wing and rotary aircrafts to complete the dream of network centric naval force.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jul 2005 20:03

French deal stuck; Germans make submarine pitch
Newind Press Saturday July 9 2005 00:00 IST

NEW DELHI: With the deal for French Scorpene submarines stuck at the Cabinet level, the Germans are in the country again, pitching hard for their HDW Class 214 submarines to be considered for what will be a Rs 12,000 crore order. With the French making a full attempt to convince the government to close the deal, the Germans are determined to get a foot in the door. Top officials representing the German shipbuilder HDW - including a technical expert from the shipyard and a management top-brass - were in the Capital for the last few days. They made a comprehensive presentation to the Navy's controller of warship production & acquisition, Vice-Admiral JS Bedi, on Tuesday.

The HDW officials have been regularly visiting India ever since the firm was cleared of corruption charges three months ago. The case involved their sale of four submarines to the Indian Navy in the mid-1980s. But the current visit by the HDW officials has a special significance. For the first time, they told the Navy that the HDW Class-214 submarine could be integrated with submarine-to-land missile systems, including the American Sub-Harpoon or Russian Klub-3M-54E1 (now part of the Navy's Kilo-class subs). Significantly, it was the absence of such a missile capability on the proposed Class 214 that originally compelled the government to look at the French Scorpene, which can fire Exocet-39 missiles.

The company has also suggested that interest in the Sub-Harpoon missiles would now be simpler to address, considering growing Indo-US relations. For the Navy, the delays are proving to be a serious threat to force levels, though Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash has said the force is equipped for all current threat perceptions. The Navy currently operates four German HDW 209 submarines of the Shishumar-class. High-level visits, both from France and Germany, have now become commonplace. Last year saw the visit of Germany's industry minister Peter Eickenboom, while the French Navy vice-chief visited a month ago. The Indian contract will be one of the largest single submarine purchases in the region.

A team from the German firm will be visiting later this month to discuss the all-important subject of offsets and licensed technology transfer. Vice-Admiral Bedi was given also given a comprehensive introduction to the Fuel Cell-powered Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system - technology that allows longer and quieter submerged missions. nterestingly, the Germans also presented the Navy with the option of integrating a Light Missile System, which makes the submarine capable of firing missiles at Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters hovering just above the ocean surface. :shock: :eek:

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 647
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Postby Santosh » 11 Jul 2005 23:49

Akula was supposed to be part of the Gorshkov package. It would make sense to lease them if possible until the ATV is hammered out.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Jul 2005 23:53

option of integrating a Light Missile System, which makes the submarine capable of firing missiles at Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters hovering just above the ocean surface


An avatar of teh Akash, if not itself?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby John » 11 Jul 2005 23:56

believe thats the triton sub launched anti helo missile reading from the brochure its based on polyphem fired from tube carrying a couple of these it uses iir seeker with a operator thru fiber optic wire, has altitude range of 600 meters.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1043
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Postby dinesha » 12 Jul 2005 16:41

Two Solutions Fuel Cell and Stirling Air-Independend Propulsion Systems for Submarines
LINK (PDF)

Fuel Cell Plants for Non-nuclear Submarines
LINK (PDF)

More at HDW Brochures: http://www.hdw.de/index_en.php?level=2& ... lt_id=1109

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3126
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 16 Jul 2005 11:11

French submarines run aground

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050716/a ... 996482.asp
India is likely to renegotiate a multi-billion-dollar deal to acquire submarines despite the navy having told the government that it is in favour of co-producing and inducting the Scorpene from France.

Defence sources said today that the cabinet committee on security has directed the defence ministry to take a re-look at the deal that the navy and the French government have been negotiating. The navy had also agreed to a final price of the submarine about a year ago but was dissatisfied with the government for delaying a decision as it was leading to price escalation.

In March this year, the Union government put off at the last minute a crucial meeting that was billed to clinch the estimated $1.8-billion deal to acquire French Scorpene submarines amid indications that a German manufacturer cleared of bribery charges will now bid for the programme, much to the chagrin of the navy.

The renegotiation of the Scorpene submarine deal with the French company Armaris, which was nearly clinched under the National Democratic Alliance government and its defence minister George Fernandes, could be a victory of sorts for Pranab Mukherjee.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 17 Jul 2005 15:41

If as has been quoted,the French have relented and are willing to forego the escalation clause,which was quite massive,then the Scorpene will be most probably acquired,since all the required internal technical approvals have been met with.The French offer of AIP and possibly installation of Brahmos missiles too,has made it cross another requirement.

Having said that,we may still see our four U-209s modernised to U-214 from HDW.This may be done simultaneously along wiht the Scorpene project,so that the IN can evaluate which sub technology is better.This exercise may then fiund its way into the indigenous production of modified Russian conventional subs like the Amur,which will carry Brahmos and possibly one of thy
e European AIP ssytems too.However,every day's delay will vitally affect the IN's future plans.The decision to acquire new subs must be made within a few weeks,if we are not to be left out in the rapidly evolving Asian sub stakes.

Neethan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 20 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: LONDON

Postby Neethan » 17 Jul 2005 22:19

Agreed philip, the scorpene deal will be clinched for about 3.8 billion dollars, and another 1.2 billion to upgrade the HDWs, to fit them with missile firing capability and AIP.

That sounds fair.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 22 Jul 2005 20:42

Agreed philip, the scorpene deal will be clinched for about 3.8 billion dollars, and another 1.2 billion to upgrade the HDWs, to fit them with missile firing capability and AIP.

its really pity that no media talk abt the price, but for bashing the Russians when talkig abt 'exhorbitant prices'

The scorpene started at $1.8 billion, then to 2.1 billion and now it seems like is gonna settle for $3.8 billion.

I say keep the French running for the deal and make them do it for atleast $2.1 billion, if noit the earliest $1.8 billion.

Another one that I've a desire is for to get the deal packaged (& stay put on it) for design transfer of the Le Triomphant SSBN. I've had a personal desire for that beauty for a long time, and I think we waont get a better oppertunity than this to have a deal struck. After the design, proceed to make it a double-hulled and increase the payload to 20 SSBN ..... hehe ....

Hope this time around we don miss a good oppertunity like h we missed for making a deal for CVF design along with the damn British Hawk.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 31 Jul 2005 18:09

k let me post some older articles related to Amur ----

Amur Family Submarines

Yuri Kormilitsin
General Designer, Central Marine Design Bureau Rubin

The submarine has been conceived as a kind of an underwater sea hunter, capable of destroying any targets - surface naval ships, transport vessels, or submarines - using torpedoes, missiles, mines and also with the help of frogmen.

In 1989, the Rubin Marine Design Bureau in St. Petersburg, Russia's largest submarine design organization, was commissioned by the Russian Navy to design a new fourth-generation diesel-electric submarine.

During development of the well-known submarine, project 877 ( Kilo ), the bureau made provisions for the use of reserve displacement in the modernization of the submarine. This enabled the designers, together with the industry, to move on to a new project, project 636 (See Military Parade , September-October, 1994).

Before starting work on fourth-generation diesel-electric submarines intended for export, the bureau displayed its small-size low-displacement submarine at the IDEX-93 exhibition in Abu Dhabi to ascertain the opinion of foreign specialists. The Amur model seemed tiny among the submarine models 877 and 636 exhibited on the Rubin's stand. Its miniature size attracted the attention of the press, TV, naval officials of various countries, and businessmen. They wanted to know about the submarine's design, its technical characteristics, armament, combat employment, cost, construction time, suitability for use in the shallow Persian Gulf for patrolling, landing and subversive operations, mine laying, etc. The submarine evoked particular interest among representatives from Middle Eastern countries: United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

The responses of potential customers to the new submarine, available in a wide range of versions, differing in terms of the displacement, sophisticated armament, cost and construction period, made it possible to correct our plans for the period up to the year 2000. This is quite understandable. No progress can be made unless you know the requirements of foreign customers for diesel-electric submarines and their views on naval equipment.

We have accumulated considerable experience in building submarines of the Foxtrot and Kilo classes and in selling them abroad. This makes us optimistic about the export potential of the new submarine, which has a much lower displacement and better technical characteristics and, consequently, boasts higher combat efficiency.

The submarine has been conceived as a kind of an underwater sea hunter, capable of destroying any targets - surface naval ships, transport vessels, or submarines - using torpedoes, missiles, mines and also with the help of frogmen.

The following basic concepts underlie the design of the new-generation submarine:
-the high combat efficiency of
-the submarine, surpassing other submarines of a similar class;
-guaranteed early detection of enemy ships;
-simple and convenient operation;
-smaller labor requirements in construction compared to previous generation submarines.

New radioelectronic and other equipment for the submarine is being developed by the traditional organizations, which have worked for a long time for Russia s submarine-building industry, and by a number of other leading organizations of Russia's military-industrial complex. Many first-class companies from the military-industrial complex are ready to offer their services. The competitive approach and in-depth analysis on the potential of these companies allowed Rubin and the Russian Navy to raise the standards imposed on the new equipment and also be sure that the contracts would be carried out.

The Amurs use home-made armament and equipment. The basic equipment for submarines has always been manufactured by Russian enterprises. However, this does not mean that, on a customer s request, foreign-made armament and equipment cannot be used on the Amurs or that foreign customers cannot take part in the submarine's design. The bureau's specialists have been building up their experience since the prewar years (since the 1930s).

In preparation for designing a small-displacement submarine we have analyzed the experience of the older bureau designers, which designed submarines of different displacements. We have also drawn on the experience of World War II and studied the combat actions of Soviet submarines in the shallow parts of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland.

At present the work on the development of the basic equipment has passed the stage of technical designs and working design documentation for the production of the first models. The submarine's export version has been designated Amur 1450. Its armament includes six 533-mm torpedo tubes. The ammunition consists of 16 units, which may include universal torpedoes, anti-submarine missile torpedoes, cruise missiles, mines.

Provisions are made for using high-speed anti-submarine missiles Shkval. The foreign navies have no counterparts for this weapon, whose action may be likened to the lightning stab of a dagger.

The firing system is such that ammunition may be fired in single shots or volleys of up to 6 units. It takes several seconds to fire a volley of two torpedoes from the stand-by torpedo tubes. A mechanical loading mechanism, traditionally installed on Russian submarines, allows the torpedo tubes to be automatically reloaded and quickly fire the second and subsequent volleys. All preparations for firing and actual firing are automated and controlled from the operator's console in the main control room of the submarine.

The sonar equipment includes highly sensitive direction listening antennas - two bow antennas and two sideboard antennas at the forward end of the submarine. The antennas are made as large as possible. They occupy most of the forward end surface. No similar submarines in Russia or abroad have sonar antennas covering such a large area. The shape of the forward end has been thoroughly optimized hydrodynamically and tested in the large cavitation tunnel at the Krylov Central Research Institute in St. Petersburg.

In addition to the stationary antennas the submarine has a trailing sonar antenna with an ssue point in the upper vertical stabilizer.

The low noise of the submarine equipment, use of state-of-the-art acoustic protection systems, unique engineering solutions suggested by specialists of Rubin , the Krylov Central Research Institute and other Russian Navy research organizations enable us to predict that the Amur 1450 will be 8-10 times quieter than preceding generation Kilo submarines.

A highly efficient sonar system, coupled with the low level of noise of the submarine proper, guarantees early detection of enemy ships, including superlow-noise submarines, at large distances. Consequently, the most favorable conditions are created for deciding when to attack.

The navigation equipment includes an inertial navigation system, which provides the means for safe navigation and furnishes data about the submarine's location and its motion parameters with the requisite firing precision.

The submarine has an attack periscope with a night vision channel and a laser range finder. The radio communication facilities provide reliable two-way communication with the shore command posts, ships and aircraft in the surface condition and at the periscope depth. A trail antenna is used to receive command messages at large depths. The antenna is extended from the pressure hull. The radar system, with active and passive antennas mounted on one hoist-mast gear, has a high concealment channel in the active mode and furnishes complete information about the surface and air situation without exposing the submarine.

Control of the submarine, armament, and technical facilities is highly automated and carried out from the operators consoles concentrated in the main control room. Consequently the number of crew has been reduced to 41 men with a three-shift watch and 34 men with a two-shift watch. All radioelectronic facilities are included in a common data exchange system which makes it possible to analyze data automatically at the maximum possible speed and submit the processed data to the commander for decision-making. The equipment can also be controlled from local control stations in the compartments.

The submarine adopts a cruciform arrangement of the stern control surfaces. Bow planes are mounted on the fairwater to prevent them from affecting the operation of direction-listening antennas.

Comprehensive model trials, carried out at the Krylov Central Research Institute, demonstrated the good maneuverability of the submarine in all operating conditions. The main single-shaft propulsion plant includes a 2,000-kW propulsion motor and a storage battery consisting of two groups of battery cells. The full submerged speed is 16 knots. For a submarine, armed with long-range and high-speed underwater weapons and antiship cruise missiles, this is sufficient to ensure effective performance of combat tasks. The submerged cruising range, at a cruising speed of about 3 knots, is 300 nautical miles.

For motion in the surface condition and at a periscope depth the submarine is equipped with two AC diesel-generators with rectifiers. The power rating of the diesel-generators was selected so as to ensure conventional charging of the storage battery and use of a special accelerated charging mode developed by the Russian specialists to decrease the time the submarine has to spend at a periscope depth. The absence of a brush-type collector increases the operational safety of the generators.

The new equipment developed for the Amur submarine is superior to the equipment used on third-generation submarines in terms of vibroacoustic characteristics and durability. Even if operated with high intensity, the submarine equipment does not require factory repair earlier than 10 years after it has been put into service. The submarines designers abided by the principle your ship is your home , characteristic of the Russian approach for providing comforts for the crew. Cabins are provided for all crew members, including double- berthed cabins for the officers. The commanding officer has a well furnished cozy single cabin.

Meals are served in a messroom with a buffet room. All food stock is kept in refrigerated and non-refrigerated storage rooms. The newly developed galley equipment is small in size and consumes little power. It allows hot meals to be cooked quickly, without affecting the taste and nutrient qualities of the food.

Fresh water is kept in stainless steel tanks which effectively preserve its quality. Water supplies can be replenished with the help of a distilling plant, making use of the heat generated by the diesels. On the whole the water supply is quite sufficient for drinking needs and hygienic purposes (dish washing, showers).

The designers of the new submarine had to find a radical solution to the environmental problems, which arise during the submarines use. Provisions were made to install equipment to clean bilge waters from petroleum products, treat waste-water, briquette food packing and garbage and grind food waste. This ensured compliance with existing international ecological requirements for ships. The submarine does not even have any devices for discharging waste overboard. The Amur submarine can be operated in any region of the World Ocean free from continuous ice cover.

Rubin has completed design work on a whole family of the Amur diesel-electric submarines with a displacement of 550 to 1,850 tons. The designers adopted essentially the same design and layout solutions for entire submarines and their separate subsystems, using unified or modified equipment. The specifications of the Amur submarines are presented in the table above. The family of the Amur submarines can satisfy the requirements of any potential customer. For instance, Amur 1850 differs from Amur 1450 in that its storage battery has a larger capacity and it is equipped with a more powerful propulsion motor. Hence, it boasts an increased cruising range, submerged speed and endurance and better livability. However, the displacement of the submarine has increased to 1,850 tons.

The Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau believes that it is possible and advisable to cooperate with foreign companies on a contractual basis to create any Amur modification. Moreover, submarines using the equipment supplied by the customer may be designed together with the customer.

Copyright (c) Military Parade JSC, 1997.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 31 Jul 2005 18:14

Underwater Sea Hunters

Alexander Mozgovoi
First Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor of the Military Parade magazine

The use of state-of-the-art acoustic protection systems and original engineering innovations on Amur-class submarines will make them several times quieter than Kilo-class submarines. Amurs are well-suited to their underwater environment.

Two diesel-electric submarines of a new, fourth postwar generation have been laid down at the Admiralteiskiye Verfi state-owned shipyard in St. Petersburg. One submarine (Project 677 Lada), designated Sankt Peterburg, is being built for Russia's Navy, and the other (Amur-1650) is intended for export.

Both submarines are part of the same project and differ only in customer requirements and operational conditions. The submarines will have high submerged cruising range and endurance, combat efficiency and reliability, and low acoustic signature (characteristics of the Amur-1650 submarine are given in Table 1).

In the Jan/Feb '95 issue, Military Parade described in detail Amur-class submarines with a normal displacement of 550 to 1,850 m3, which were developed by the Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau. The magazine quoted the Project's General Designer Yuri Kormilitsin as saying: "The submarine has been conceived as a kind of an underwater sea hunter, capable of destroying any target – surface naval ships, transport vessels, or submarines – using torpedoes, missiles, mines and also with the help of frogmen."

Plaque embedded in Sankt Peterburg submarine's compartment

The Rubin-designed submarine of the previous generation (Project 877, Kilo class) was described in the West as a "black hole in the ocean" for its low level of noise which prevented its detection. The use of state-of-the-art acoustic protection systems and original engineering innovations on Amur-class submarines will make them several times quieter than Kilo-class submarines. Amurs are well-suited to their underwater environment. Their sonar equipment includes highly sensitive direct-listening transducers at the forward end and a towed transducer array.

Control of the submarine, its armament and equipment is highly automated and carried out from operators' consoles concentrated in the main control room.

Admiralteiskie Verfi has vast experience in building such vessels. The shipyard's Director General Vladimir Alexandrov said at the laying-down ceremony that the Sankt Peterburg is the 300th submarine built by Admiralteiskie Verfi. The shipyard's vessels are eagerly purchased by foreign navies. In November and December 1997 alone, two submarines (Projects 636 and 877 EKM) were turned over to foreign customers.

Table 1. Specifications of the Amur-1650 submarine
Number of torpedo tubes 6
Ammunition 18
Displacement, m3 1,765
Length, m 67
Beam, m 7.1
Full submerged speed, knots 21
Submerged cruising range at cruising speed, miles 650
Cruising range in submerged dieseling mode, miles 6,000
Maximum submergence depth, m 250
Endurance, days 4

The construction of the Amur-1650 submarine has been made possible owing to efforts of the Morskaya Tekhnika (Marine Equipment) financial and industrial group, which includes Admiralteiskie Verfi, the Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau, Incombank, and the Central Company of the Morskaya Tekhnika FIG. The financial and industrial group is funding research and development efforts and the purchase of materials and accessories.

"The participation of commercial structures in the funding of military-technical cooperation projects is not something new," the Director General of the Central Company of the Morskaya Tekhnika FIG Igor Bakhmetyev said. "We can recall the supply of MiG fighters abroad. Now our task is to organize optimum financial schemes to make it possible to conduct research and development and purchase the required equipment for the Amur's export version. On the whole, the pooling of budgetary and extra-budgetary funds for the construction of submarines of a new generation for the Russian Navy and for export will help save a lot of money."

At the laying-down ceremony, the privilege to embed the plaque on the Sankt Peterburg submarine was granted to the Commander-in-Chief of Russia's Navy Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov and St. Petersburg Deputy Mayor Yuri Antonov. The plaque of the Amur-1650 submarine was laid down by the President of the Morskaya Tekhnika FIG, the General Designer and Head of the Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau Academician Igor Spassky, and a departmental head of the Rosvoorouzhenie State Corporation, Victor Kapustin.

The ceremony was also attended by the Head of the Department of Defense Strategic Programs of Russia's Ministry of Economics Oleg Yefimov, other officials, workers and engineers of Admiralteiskie Verfi and Rubin, numerous guests and reporters.

Copyright © Military Parade JSC, 1998.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 31 Jul 2005 18:17

Russian Export Submarines: Striking Power, Reliablity and Stealthiness

Yuri Kormilitsyn
General Designer of the Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau
Leonid Yashenkin
Head of the Submarine Department of the 1st Naval Central Research Institute of the Russian Federation

Russian submariners shared their unique experience with submarine designers and builders, permitting them to develop boats capable of operating in any climatic conditions.

The world's submarine market has an almost century-long history. During this period over 500 submarines have been exported worldwide. Various foreign experts maintain that Germany is the largest exporter of submarines. This assertion is erroneous, since Russia ranks first among other nations, having exported over 150 submarines, despite the fact that its first submarine was exported only after World War II. Over the same period, the USA has exported about 90 submarines, Germany – about 80 and Great Britain – about 70.

Export of Russian submarines dates back to post-WWII times, when the first-generation submarines of Projects 613 and 633 (Whiskey and Romeo according to Western classification) were exported. At that time the USA and Great Britain were selling war-time submarines of Projects Balao, S and T. As the Russian export submarines were designed and built after WWII, they boasted the highest performance characteristics at that time, were equipped with snorkeling system, sonar and homing torpedoes. The submerged cruising range of the submarines at an economic speed was 400 km.

Russia also helped submarine importers train their crews and create and develop coastal infrastructure; supplied spare parts, tools, accessories and materials to repair the purchased ships; trained specialists and handed over documentation.

Sometimes, the entire set of design documents was handed over to submarine importers for the construction of submarines at their own shipyards and all possible assistance was rendered to them in assimilating the relevant technologies.

Project 641 (Foxtrot) submarines were derivatives of the Whiskey and Romeo class diesel boats. They featured larger ammunition load, endurance and range. The USSR started to export these submarines (modifications I641 and I641K) in the mid-1960s. By that time the USSR's Navy had accumulated extensive experience of their operation in different areas of the World Ocean – from the Arctic to the equator.

Russian submariners shared their unique experience with submarine designers and builders, permitting them to develop boats capable of operating in any climatic conditions. If we look at the map of the first-generation Russian submarine export deliveries spreading to Albania, Bulgaria, Egypt, Indonesia, China, North Korea, Poland, Syria, India, Libya, and Cuba, we shall see that the boats were operated in diverse climatic conditions, including the warmest and most saline tropical seas rich in microorganisms. The reliability of Russian-built submarines was proved in practice.

With the beginning of the nuclear shipbuilding age, diesel submarines were built in Russia at a lower pace. But due to the presence of inland seas and extended coastal economic zones, where operation of nuclear submarines is limited, common sense triumphed and the second-generation submarine of Project 641B (Tango) was developed. In comparison with the submarine of Project 641, the hull of its successor was better suited for underwater operation. It was equipped with a new sonar system fitted with a large passive array, a storage battery of a larger capacity, powerful torpedo armament, including quick-loading gear, automatic fire control system and other improvements. But actually, this was no more than an improved version of the diesel submarine of Project 641.

Third-generation submarines of Project 877 (Kilo class) and their export versions 877E and 877EKM were developed under a fundamentally new concept using newly developed equipment and construction techniques. The submarine was equipped with a one-shaft electric propulsion unit, combined with a standby propulsion plant arranged in the boat's aft end. The submarine's state-of-the-art electronics made the boat one of the most modern ships. The submarine's versatility is worth noting. It shows excellent maneuverability in shallow waters, straits and narrow passages, and performs well in any sea state.

Many navies worldwide recognize the Kilo-class diesel submarine as the most successful boat in its class because of its low level of generated noise (contributing to the submarine's enhanced stealthiness), impressive combat capabilities, reliability, excellent sea-keeping qualities, reasonable automation, easy operation and maintenance and high degree of survivability.

Today, 17 submarines of Project 877EKM are operated by the navies of India, Algeria, Iran, Poland, Romania and China. These submarines considerably enhance the combat efficiency of the navies of the countries that operate them.

A diesel submarine of Project 636 is a further development of the Kilo class boat. By adding only two frame spacings (600mm x 2) to the boat's hull length, the designers increased the diesel-generator's power rating 1.5 times, provided better shock-mounts for these generators and, consequently, reduced the generated noise level, reduced the main propulsion motor speed by half, and replaced over 30 items of equipment with the new low-noise specimens. Due to these changes the boat's underwater speed was increased to 20 knots, her acoustic field was reduced, and other parameters were improved. The submarines of Project 636 entered service with the Russian Navy over seven years ago. The first boats have already been exported.

The upgrade potential of the Kilo- class submarine is far from being exhausted. As soon as the testing of new items of equipment is completed and their production is launched, they can be installed on a submarine being built or repaired, upon customer request. Among such new equipment items are towed transducer arrays, periscopes fitted with a night vision channel and laser range finder, an antiship cruise missile system, an air-independent fuel cell propulsion plant, etc. The submarine designers are prepared to discuss installation of equipment manufactured by other countries. With these upgrades, Kilo-class submarines will last into the first decade of the next millennium and will be competitive.

The designers of the Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau (St. Petersburg), Russia's oldest submarine design organization, continue to produce new designs. In the late 1980s they started to develop a fourth-generation diesel-electric submarine, the export version of which was designated Amur-1650. Considering the submarine's stealthiness and sonar equipment, the boat is likely to be superior to her predecessors. This will change her operational tactics, because a multiple increase in the target detection range will change target detection techniques. The submarine will be equipped with an automated integrated control system and armed with the latest cruise missiles, torpedoes and mines.

At the start of the 21st century, the first submarines of the Amur-1650 type will be offered for export. Priority will be given to the «Kilo-class submarine club» members, i.e. these boats will initially be offered to those countries which have already accumulated some experience in operating Russian-built submarines.

Presently, the guarantees of after-sale servicing and repairs of underwater ships have been raised to a higher standard. The Marine Equipment financial and industrial group has been established in Russia to incorporate a design bureau that produces submarine design projects, three large shipyards, one of the largest banks, and the Navy's Shipbuilding Institute. Such a strong and well-balanced consortium is capable of resolving any issue related to Russia's contractual obligations for the export and servicing of submarines.

For those countries which contemplate not only to purchase submarines, but build them under a licensing agreement, and later design and build submarines on their own, several versions of the technology transfer program have been devised.

Copyright © Military Parade JSC, 1998.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 03 Sep 2005 20:08

RG,
well first of all sorry for being soooo late to reply ....
First, I am not anti-Russia, nor Anti-western, I am just Pro-India.

k fine, but I just want every Indians to be just Indians, neither 'Indians' nor 'pro-India' ..... the prob with the later two is that the 'indians' thinks that they run India and w/o their money, India wud have been doomed, wud have been with begging bowl & w/o any technologiocal know-how trailing in the knowlegede curve etc etc, now thats really Pathetic! The prob with 'pro-India' is that, we tend to loose sight of what we make and blind patriotism sets in. Blinding even more, to let us see the defficiencies that we might have had/is having in our products & in our apprach in almost every sphere ...

The current thinking to diversify sources for military hardware is good one. We have faced problems with Russia regarding spares and long delays in getting the bought hardware operations. When did Mig-29 become operational. When was the final version of SU-30MKI delivered.

And my belief is that, diversification has outlived its utility. The 'diversification' started in the 90's yes, 90's , not even in 80's if we are to really take in what 'diversification' has meant in the Indian context. I'd not like to add the M2K (among others) in the 'diversificationn' list, becoz that came in as per out requirements and not that we wanted to diversify for the sake of 'diversification', that we are doin now, w/o any considerable advantage.

As for the MiG-29s, like most Indians, u too seem to ignore the political reality that came into the MiG deal, where by - God knows why - RG shot down the Russian proposal for licence building (also mean the 'service stations', spares etc etc) of the same in India way back when the deal was being done. And it wud be highly insane to even think that if we really had the will, IAF wud definetely have had their customised version of MiG-29 even then as whatever products that mostly have arived from Russia to the Indian forces have been tailored for Indian requirements, which also means that 'customisation' did not start after 90s, but it was simply the way it was. I hope u are well aware as to when the MiG-29 became operationl or for that matter what all was behing the same. As for the MKI, even u questioning it is pathetic, as u simply have been ignoring the Isreali & other manufactuers who stopped their 'colloboration' after the US sanctions (but thats seldom reported or for that matter the cost increase after the same, thats pity!).

Did not Russia threaten/warn us that not to go for anything else than Mig29K, otherwise gorshkov deal is off. ( well this is understandable to a certain extent). How about Mig-21 upgrade. Regarding upgrade of Mig-27 etc. Well they were not happy with us getting Phalcon mounted on IL-76 etc. Now they are making same kind of noice on Akula. the list keeps growing. I can only go with information from media, as I have no internal source.

Now, thats BS! ... first of all, i'd like to know the source for the news abt Russia threatening us not to go in for anything else other than MiG-29K. BTW, will the Harriers also come in the list of those ? considering that MT was a Lady with an Iron Fist and our RG was a soft punny - backboneless - person who went abt his Italian wifes choices. Whats the case with MiG-21 and MiG-27s ???..... probebly every Indian comes to forget that we came into WTO a bit long ago, and still we try to override /bypass the original manufacturer and give the work for the pirated goods???...... will any of the other manufacturers even allow this??.....i guess, its a BIG NO.

As for the Phalcon, i don feel a bit sorry to say that u are as ignorant as any other who talk abt that BS that Russia was not cooperating with Israel. But these punny souls even forget abt articles which came out after the 2001 'roadshow' that US has cleared Israel for the Phalcon deal, till then what the media (I consider that the handiwork of Isreali media) reported was, the deal was not moving forward coz of Russian high-handedness. As for the integrating the Phalcon system with Ilyushin, h much work do u guys think is even necessary??? ........ Isreali's have been doing the MiG-21 upgradation w/o the 'assistance' of the RAC-MiG & so do have they been doing the same with Mi-8/17, Mi1-24/35 etc etc ..... also before IAF's Phalcon came in, the Australian Wedgetail (which rightly went to Boeing) was to have been mounted on Airbus. But then do u guys even in ur wet dream think that Airbius wud have given the entire things wat the Isreali's might have asked other than what was needed for the 'pluggin-in' the Phalcon system??..... well NO! ... thats coz once u get hold of the 'required stuff' ...... u will be the next company to upgrade the large number of Airbuses that operate around the world & get hold of a good upgradation market! ..... now thats also what the Israeli's tried to do in the name of 'non-cooperation' from the Russian side. After all Russia have A-50 based on IL-76 and they know what all might be required for the same for Phalcon. So what these bloody pigs did was to show the Russians as culpril in the whole deal with that dirty game.

And if the Isreali's really managed to get hold of what they want (on IL-76) by pressuring Russia through India, then we Indian's might as well see the Isreali's putting forward to IAF their upgradation package for IL-76 (& for world market, which is lucrative) bypasing the Russians. But I'd love & pray to see me proved terribly wrong on this one. Also, do look out for the bllody Isreali 'upgradation package' for the An-32 for IAF .... I am pretty sure they might have done that too & have readied to milk IAF on that too ...

Regarding the Phalcon deal, I've my own theory and I stand by that firmly and with a recent report, i feel, i've been correct in standing against the propagated theory (and many had argued for that) that the Indian AWACS programme was lost with the loss of one of the test bed (what a pun!). It was none other than a Joke put to the Indian's so as to see that someone else got the contract for the AWACS.

The Akula affair is the media created like all the ones which are related to Russia. It was the media which firstr created stories and then some Russian personal will say something abt the same etc etc ... with media reports coming up with articles like - Akula is coming, Akula is not coming etc etc ..... I very well believ that the real things is somewhere being talked abt in the proper channel and it wont come out untill a firm settlement. But untill then all dogs will bark from outside. And giving these ppl the air is the 'insiders' from the MoD, the same very breed of ppl, which gave out that IAF was in need of additional a/c , which made the French increase the price of M2K in the 90s. A similiar case as, u ppl might have seen was out just recently. Also do factor in how many of the kids of these babus might be studying in the west. Have u guys forgotten the Singh's episode or the earlier one w.r.t an ex-IAF IB officer??

Tell me what is the status of Mig-AT and why it existed in the first place, Amur is nothing but similar design to compete for Indian contract. Russian Sub were double hull, Amur is new, Once proven India can think about it. Western nations (HDW, France, spain etc) have more experience with single hull design, and we expect then to be operation sooner, then an Amur which may very well go the way of Mig-29/Su-30MKI in getting operational.

I don know abt the current stautus of the AT, but if u r implying that, it was made for IAF and was intened to push down the IAFs throat, then ur wrong. Simply b'coz, the trainers from RAC-MiG and Yak came in response to the Russian AF requirements with an obvious plan to market abroad. In that case, u'll also be knowing that in Russia various OKBs hade between 6 or more 5th Gen a/c designs which again was in need for the next-gen fighters.

But then , h come u never asked urself the question as to y even after 25 yrs the British Hawk was preferred over the much newer designs & much more capable platforms than the Hawk??? ..... y did u not ask as to Y it was so importanct for the GoI to go in for the Hawk & not for a joint-development of the MiG-AT or Yak-130 like the MKI deal?? ..... and did u ever consider the fact that BAE system wud have lost nearly/over 2,200 jobs if not for the Indian AJT deal??...... did u then ask , if as to h much pressure & lobby the British Govt might have had on the Indian Govt to go in for the Hawk AJT?? ..... well i can answer it for u and thats a big NO, coz ppl like u unfortuately only see one side & the top most priority is to cirticize whatever is Russian.

Now, if at all the Hawk have been the last word in AJT (as many wud point out bashing it on IAF's choice) & not the twin-engined , newer & much capable designed like MiG-AT & Yak-130, why the damn HAL is moving forward with a twin-engined AJT (& IAF supports it) rather than a single-engined AJT 'inspired' from Hawk?? ...... well the basic fact is that u went for an AJT which is nearing its end against the next generation of AJTs which need a a bit more wait. But then , the first of the Hawk is only to come by 2007 where as that cud also have been the same if we had gone in for a joint-development for the Yak-130 or MiG-AT without wasting 5-7 yrs eveb after Pohkran ......

What u siad abt the AT and Amur is where the fault lies ..... come out of that mentality and the picture wud be clear to u. And whats is this 'proven' tag thats tied with the Amur??.... is it that Russia have to prove that they can built submarines or that since they have been building double-hulled designs, single hulled cant be built??.... i find it rather stupid . About, the Amur, one Amur is already testing the waters and the second & third one will be out sooner or later.

It is good idea to maintain a western line of technology along with what we get from Russia. May it be Navy, AF or Army, MOD can do better to diversify the source to meet long term strategic goal.

So who questioned it, i never questioned it, my whole argument first was if the scorpene is taking so long, y not keep it there for now and move with the Amur line now, as that wud also allow some chill up the French spine and allow them to lower the Scorpene price. Take my word for it. But since thats not happening, lets wait for the Scorpenes to arrive first, but any other line that might come-in might by the Amurs, the deal has not yet openly come out. It maybe coz, there might be some final touches to the VLS module, AIP module etc etrc ... though speculation ... But if there is going to be a real sea-denial asset other than N-powerd guys, then it wud be the Amur-1650 with Brahmos Amur complex , as Socrpene is most likely to be restricted to the Klub system from TT & I don think it will 'deform' itself with the VLS module.

You claim our babus are more western inclined, inspite of the fact that 70% of the hardware Indian Armed forces field are of Russian origin. Obviously there is a need to diversify as there are problems with single source. Not only the west is better able to market the hardware, but the design is more ergonomics. I have read in media, that HDW subs have better crew facility then Russian subs. IAF is happy with M2k. So it is not just marketing, but the products appear to satisfy the customer as well.

Yes, can u tell me as to where our babus wud love to fly on their first oppertunity, their first choice for their life products etc etc, they wud pick (take my word for it) Videshi , more so western products over any Indian one. Moreover, with $1 = Rs 45, its sooooooo cheap to get babus nowadays, not to mention, moles. But even if not for money, the mentality that many Indian have - western products superior - is also what the babus also have! BTW, what do u think abt the NSAB?? .... and other such boards??... there are many pro-west or some kind guys in there.

Abt the submarines inside, First of all, I wonder how many of us have seen the inside a sub??..i guess, the bare minimum to nill ..... so u better wind up with that theory which is based on ur perceptions rather than ur first hand account. But if ur a submariner, I'll merit some thought on that ....

Russia would care less about India once the market dries up. Each one is for itself, and you cannot expect Russia to behave otherwise. They are selling too much hardware to China, and I can't trust whatever promise Chicom has made to Russia, there is large possibility the TSP may get there hands on many of it.

well i am not as pathetically nervous as u (or for that matter others) when it comes to Russian weapons to China ..... as for the Russians, Chinese power contibute to checking US which is their need & so they favor it, which definetely is not at the cost of Indian security ..... And China will ONLY TAKE-ON India ONLY AFTER, it have 'taken care' of US, and the things will ONLY change (India before US) IF & ONLY IF, Washington is ruling New Delhi .... ball is in our court .... either continue the game that ur playing now OR take up the fight of another chap playing in another court for more $$$ and for safegaurding the interets of some worthless pigs ...

Bottomline, India should think long term and buy whatever it feels suits it need, it could be western, Russian, Israel, US, or from timbuktoo. I don't care.

India needs to think real long term .......

If Indian Navy thinks scorpene is what they need, that is what they should get. But they should evaluate all offer on the table, and try to maximize the productivity of $s spent while getting the most suitable product for their short and long term.

Yes, if thats what they want, they'll get it ..... but my personal view is that IN is not getting a good deal or customisation ..... my personal 'tags' to be included in the deal are ---
- Klub (a definite)
- Integrating PJ-10 VLS (work on the possiblity + Russian AIP)
- HY-130 tech transfer (used on Le Triomphant SSBN, 500m depth) with no counter tags attached, so that we can built the Amur (& ATV) with the same steel, the important thing is bascially welding ....

if with these Frenchies are saying even $6 billion, go for it, but the things shud come with its base ... the more we are wasting time, the force will go down, as we wont be able to expand, rather than these will only go to filling the voids. Also, I hope IN finalises the two lines of Submarine building with a deal for 12 x Scorpene + another line for 12 x Amur-1650. Let 4-6 x Scorpene come from France even if its going to cost much higher, but the first of the subs to come only after 2010, is simply not digestable ... so now many wud be asking where the F_ck is the money, my reply always have been to use up the Forex reserve, and I will stand by that .... atleast we shud have some benifit for subsidising the US economy ...

Personally I thought HDW was a better sub, from the paper specs obviously. But it may be better Sub, but perhaps not a better weapon system platform that IN is looking for. So let then decide what they want. I do not mind a mix of Scorpene/HDW and Russian (AMUR/Kilo) etc. Provided technology is provided for it to be produced in India.

U-212/214 seems like a good sub ..... But is it really?? .... to my view, it simply don suite our nees & is rather a very small sub which wud need heavy modification to its current design to accomodate the Klub systems or for that matter the VLS.

I simply don get Y u guys don understand that these are small puppys for 'home duties' meant for ur sofa & lap and not the real wolfs that one wud need for real actions in ur backyards. But the puppies do scare & bite as well .......

personal note - from ur dates u look very senior to me (hopefully by age too) and I don inted the post as an insult or any sort of that. I do still go by my values "respecting my elders & loving my younger ones" so if at all any words may sound insulting, plz do pardon it as my pathetic english.

.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 03 Sep 2005 20:12

Philip,

The lethality and range of these weapons gives the sub its true capability.Silencing is another very important factor,but a silent sub without enough kill capability is nothing but a 2000t+ periscope!

can't agree more on that one!

One must remember here that HDW is actually owned by US banks and our American educated Finance Minister is only helping the enemy by his ministry's apparent vested non-decision objections and actions damaging to India's vital defence and security needs.

But thats something most tend to ignore ..... also the sirji is also no better, another crap under the patronage of madams duppatta .... bloody $diot ....

What could be a new weapon system ?

---> Naval SCALP ?
---> Brahmos ?

I would love this Stealth Submarine + Supersonic ASCM combo.

It most likely wud be the Klub (IN demand) but the French might as well be pressurising for funding and then putting their Naval Scalp. But if in reality, the IN has demanded for another weapons, it must definetely be the Klub-series, no way PJ-10 is going to be fired through TT, and an extra module for PJ-10 VLS will require another set of hydrodynamic testing as the sub is going to 'deform' from its current shape and I don think French had though abt such module unlike the Russians who have done the same for their Amur.

Give us full ToT for exocet so that we exactly know how to counter them and in the process make paki billion dollar Agosta programme futile.

Now countering exocet is not a herculean task and am pretty sure IN maynot be too much worried abt the same as some of u guys do ... so there absolutely is no need to give the french multi-billion dollars just to counter the Exocet.

Singha, but russians might cause some problems. Being upset over loosing submarine bid they might create fuss that will delay the procurement. Remember their non cooperative attitude at the time of tri lateral deal of Phalcon AWACS. We will loose time if we get russians involved in this. Plus they will try to make as much money as they want.

that was a nonsense propagated by the Isrealis ...

Also, does TSP needs french permission to arm Agostas with Harpoon ? If thats true we can also pressurize french to deny that. After all we will be buying 126 Mirages, Scorpene from them... they need to look out for our interests.

Definetely not, I guss the ToT also included the weapons codes to the PN as much as they got the Mod17 Torpedo with the Agostas. And really wonder h come Exocet is making u guys so nervous, when the missile iteself have not gained speed or any exceptional intelligence to avoid any ships close-in weapons. The only threat that Agosta cud pose is with their torpedoes more than exocet, is what i believe.

BTW, who said that 126 a/c deal have gone to the French??.... the first circulated reports abt the same was also based on the French offer of re-furbished M2K from their stocks to fullfill the IAF's need for 126 a/c which has been on the plan from the 90s and was let out my some insiders which made the French not only to increase the cost of the M2Ks but also to offer the m2k-5, m2k-v etc etc through the media, bypassing the proper channels.

Between I would like to see Scorpene fitted with

http://www.dcn.fr/us/produits/interface.html#8

Submarine Air Defence,

DCN is developing an air defence concept for submarines.

The system is based on sea-proven technologies and missiles fired from the submarine's torpedo launch tubes.

The system, comprising its own sensors and combat subsystem, enables a submerged submarine to detect and attack ASW helicopters (whether hovering or patrolling) and maritime patrol aircraft.

The concept represents a cost-effective deterrent against airborne ASW resources.


--This is to take care of Pukees P3C orions.

--Brahmos and Exocet for their F-22 frigates they are in process getting from china and other PN surface vessels.

--BlackShark torpedoes to take care of Agostas.

All this power packed into a stealthy body. Ahhh! that will make it one hell of a hunter killer submarine.

Plus india can add some special features like datalinks with Naval AWACS, Surface Ships, Space Assets and Air borne fixed wing and rotary aircrafts to complete the dream of network centric naval force.

Now, ~ 62 m is the standard length of the Scorpene w/o an AIP. So if we are goin in for the AIP & the AD system for the Socrpene PLUS a larger torpedo room for accomodating Klub family of missiles, the sub wud as well be ~80+ m in length. If thats the case, it wud mean that we'd need another motor with atleast 3MW capacity to take care of the heavier displacement that Socrpene wud be after these customisation.

CY_baru

I'll reply to u later in the Indo Russian thread for the question that u asked me earlier ... soorry to u too for being sooo late.... basically I'm very lethargic to hate to sit & type as it takes me so much time, so mostly i read & quit untill & unless I'm fully charged up & ready to sit & type ....

George J

Postby George J » 03 Sep 2005 21:34

Marcos wrote:.......As for the MKI, even u questioning it is pathetic, as u simply have been ignoring the Isreali & other manufactuers who stopped their 'colloboration' after the US sanctions (but thats seldom reported or for that matter the cost increase after the same, thats pity!).........


Since its seldom reported then I guess I might have missed this story too...so I am sure you with your infinit wizzdumb have a source for this story?

Your post are too long and they are more ranting and raving that really dont add much to any of the discussions you are contributing to.

Your Phalcon reply is one of the most incoherrent replies I have seen till date...what are you saying in simple english?
now thats also what the Israeli's tried to do in the name of 'non-cooperation' from the Russian side. After all Russia have A-50 based on IL-76 and they know what all might be required for the same for Phalcon. So what these bloody pigs did was to show the Russians as culpril in the whole deal with that dirty game.


What a part of the pure russian A-50 needing ground based processing vs total onboard processing of western (incl. Israeli) AWACS dont you understand? What part of the fact that IAF leased two A-50 from the RuAF and found it to be lacking did you not get? Now I have seen you second guess the IN (with your self confessed limited knowledge), so should we take this rant as the same applied to the IAF too?

It was VERY important for the IAF to maintain some semblence of logistical commonality with its existing tranport fleet hence the IL-76. But after the structural collapse of the AEW radome in the HS-748....the IAF felt that it was important to involve the OEM to clear and warrenty the proposed structural upgrades/modification to the airframes. What part of the OEM initially unwilling to cooperate dont you get? What part of the fact that they wanted more money and they got it (since the AWACS is a super critical project for IAF) are you arguing about?

Finally most babu kids that I know ....went to the US on assistantship/fellowship...after they went to premier schools in India like IIT/REC. The ones that went to B-Schools did so after they became CA and worked in top consulting firms in India. So much for that. But before you rant and rave I can tell you there are many services kids who are in the US too (including on BRF). Coming to the US to study DOES NOT indicate anything nor does it justify your ranting.

Note: please reply succintly or else dont expect a reply.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2148
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 03 Sep 2005 22:39

After field testing A-50, one of the IAF officials said that they would rather not have an AWAC in IAF than have to buy A-50 :eek:

Pretty strong statement don't you think!

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Postby Shwetank » 03 Sep 2005 22:40

About Marcos
your post are too long and they are more ranting and ravin


I agree. Please refrain from writing insults and snide comments which have nothing to do with your argument. It gets annoying after a while and
takes away from the argument at hand.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Postby Vipul » 07 Sep 2005 00:18

Can we say its a deal now ? or would we have another committe to look into this "Approved deal"?

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.p ... submarines

India orders 6 Franco-Spanish submarines

Reuters
Posted online: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 at 1919 hours IST

Paris, September 6: India has ordered six submarines developed by a group of French and Spanish companies in a deal worth 2.4 billion euros, newspaper La Tribune reported on its web site on Tuesday.

The order for Scorpene submarines will generate revenue of 1.2 billion euros for Armaris, a unit of French shipbuilder DCN and defence electronics group Thales, the paper said.

Officials at Thales were not immediately available for comment, but a DCN spokeswoman cautioned that "the Indian government had not notified Armaris of its approval".

The vessels are being developed in cooperation with Izar of Spain.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9896
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby arun » 11 Sep 2005 11:24

It’s a bargain: six Scorpene submarines at $1.5 billion
Huma Siddiqui

New Delhi, Sept 9 After extracting a 3.5% discount from Airbus on the Indian airlines (IA) aircraft deal, New Delhi has renegotiated the price for purchase of ‘Scorpene’ submarines.

According to government sources, the defence ministry has managed to cut the deal size to $1.5 billion from the originally estimated $2.4 billion and has also protected itself from cost escalation due to foreign exchange fluctuations. India plans to purchase six submarines from French defence manufacturers DCN and Thales.

The sources told FE that a formal announcement is expected to be made during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s official visit to France on September 12.

In July, at the request of India, commercial teams of the French companies and the MBDA came for renegotiating the deal.
The submarines are to be delivered between 2010 and 2015. As part of the deal, the submarines would be armed with MBDA’s SM-39 Exocet anti-ship missiles. However, Naval headquarters is worried that its fleet “particularly the submarine strike arm” was de-commissioning vessels faster than it can acquire them


The 250 million price tag per submarine looks suspect. The Malaysian’s paid 324 Million per submarine.(Link)

If this article is true, the French were looking to rip us big time.

Nirmal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 05 Jul 2005 15:51
Location: London, United Kingdom
Contact:

Scorpene Subs

Postby Nirmal » 11 Sep 2005 17:04

Huma Siddiqui

New Delhi, Sept 9 After extracting a 3.5% discount from Airbus on the Indian airlines (IA) aircraft deal, New Delhi has renegotiated the price for purchase of ‘Scorpene’ submarines.

According to government sources, the defence ministry has managed to cut the deal size to $1.5 billion from the originally estimated $2.4 billion and has also protected itself from cost escalation due to foreign exchange fluctuations. India plans to purchase six submarines from French defence manufacturers DCN and Thales.

The sources told FE that a formal announcement is expected to be made during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s official visit to France on September 12.

In July, at the request of India, commercial teams of the French companies and the MBDA came for renegotiating the deal.
The submarines are to be delivered between 2010 and 2015. As part of the deal, the submarines would be armed with MBDA’s SM-39 Exocet anti-ship missiles. However, Naval headquarters is worried that its fleet “particularly the submarine strike arm” was de-commissioning vessels faster than it can acquire them.


The cost is $2.4bn for 8 Subs cleared for Purchase @$300 million a piece, all without MESMA AIP, 2 to be built in France and delivered to IN and the remaining six to be built in Mumbai by Mazgaon Naval docks shipyard, according to press reports appearing in 'Outlook India' on line paper. All will be armed and supplied with Exocet Missles of the latest variety. It is further speculated that Scorpene will be fitted with German AIP in the locally constructed units at later date; also Scorpene will form the platform for future nuclear sub design of the Indian Navy.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 11 Sep 2005 20:26

Nirmal, please post your comments outside of the news link. It appears that it is part of the news blurb. I have edited your post. Can you also post the date of the Outlook news article? Thanks.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 11 Sep 2005 20:41

8 subs! Great!!! The more the merrier! :twisted:

This ons is for the experts:
What is wrong with the MESMA that India is not going in for them on these subs? Why the intent to procure the German Fuel cell system? Understandably, the fuel cells are quiet, but the MESMA has a potential off shoot in that its PWR circuit can be used in a nuclear reactor, in a sub. Presumably india's problems with the PWR were not related to the Pressurized water circuit then.

I feel that military hardware is like squash racquets - they come with a statutory warning 'No gurantee due to the vigourous nature of the game'. Which would be better or safer -
A leaking kerosene / ethyl alcohol + Oxygen mixture
OR
A Hydrogen + oxygen mixture
if an accident / battle damage occurs?

Please enighten :?:

Neethan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 20 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: LONDON

Postby Neethan » 11 Sep 2005 22:47

The scorpene basic does not come with AIP but it has an endurance of 50days same as the scorpene-AIP, the only difference with the scorpene with AIP is that it has a secondary AIP for extended endurance.The only other reason for not aquiring them is the ATV's nuclear reactor is in place and functional, and ready to be inducted any time soon.

AIP was the main reason for getting the scorpenes, they are not exceptionally stealthier than the kilos.

Scorpene-AIP

Specifications
Crew 31
Depth 300 m 984-ft
Endurance 50 days
Length 76.2 m 250-ft
Max Speed 20 kts
Full Displacement 2,000 tons
Number of Weapons 18
Torpedo Tubes 6

Scorpene-Basic INDIA

Specifications
Crew 36
Depth 300 m 984-ft
Endurance 50 days
Length 66.4 m 218-ft
Max Speed 20 kts
Full Displacement 1,700 tons
Number of Weapons 18
Span 6.2 m 20-ft
Torpedo Tubes 6


Scorpène's modular design readily accommodates the Mesma air-independent propulsion system during construction (Scorpène Basic-AIP) or at any stage of the cycle life. Mesma increases submerged endurance by a factor of 3 to 4. Risk of detection is radically reduced since the vessel spends much less time at snorkel depth recharging batteries.

This would mean that india will wait till all submarines are built and upgrade it with the AIP at a later date.
This makes sense since locally producing it will cut down costs.
Last edited by Neethan on 11 Sep 2005 23:25, edited 4 times in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19361
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2005 23:16

There seems to be some confusion about the Scorpene specs.According to an article in "Force",the first three subs will be of the CM-2000 design,without AIP.while the last three called the AM-2000 variant will incorporate MESMA.The first two will be built at Cherbourg,while the rest will be built in India.Another four AM-2000s are on option.UDS SUBTICS will provide the combat manafgement system.Apart from a variety of other sensors and eqpt.,the armamanet will include the Block 3 Exocets ,which have a range of 180+km.The Blackshark torpedoes also part of the deal are also used by Pak on its Agostas.The other weapon system hinted at in another report is most probably the KLUB.Brahmos is most likely to be part of another line for Amurs,as our Kilos have eventually to be replaced.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 11 Sep 2005 23:37

Philip, the Force article is a figment of the author's imagination. Not true at all.

p_saggu: The MESMA is not favoured by the Indian Navy simply because the technology has not been proven i.e. it has not been used aboard any French or export submarine, with the exception of Pakistan. German fuel cells on the other hand are in use not only on export U-boats but even in the German Navy's own sub fleet, with U31 being the first boat to recieve the new generation fuel cell. These fuel cells emit little exhaust heat thus reducing detection. Click on the link below;

http://www.siemens.com/page/1,3771,1148 ... 68,00.html

Neethan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 20 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: LONDON

Postby Neethan » 12 Sep 2005 00:01

Some allege that the modular construction of the Scorpène would allow for the installation of a nuclear propulsion system.[21] It is unclear to what extent DCN might be involved in such an adaptation. France has never exported nuclear propulsion systems.[3] However, as India has been pursuing this capability independently for years, DCN may only be providing implementation assistance without a direct sale of a complete reactor. The French Navy operates the world's smallest nuclear submarine class, Le Rubis. With a submerged displacement of 2,680 tons, it is not significantly larger than a Scorpène-class boat of up to 2,000 tons.[22] The latter with its modular design could potentially incorporate a small reactor with a design similar to the one used in Le Rubis.

This is what they meant by technology from DCN may be implemented on the ATV and vice versa.

India may have a nuclear reactor in place for its submarines

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 183
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Postby Luxtor » 12 Sep 2005 02:02

Why is India not building these scorpenes with AIP right from the start? The Pakis are supposedly building their 3rd Agosta with AIP and the previous 2 Agostas they're going to retrofit with AIP.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 12 Sep 2005 03:01

Another reason to procure the MESMA
When the submariners get bored of kicking paki a$$, they can always chill out with a little "Ethyl Alcohol" on board... :D :wink:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Postby srai » 12 Sep 2005 08:30

Luxtor wrote:Why is India not building these scorpenes with AIP right from the start? The Pakis are supposedly building their 3rd Agosta with AIP and the previous 2 Agostas they're going to retrofit with AIP.



Because IN didn't want the MESMA AIP and then because of the additional cost that would need to be renegotiated which would further delay the procurement. IN needs to get the 6 Scorpenes as fast as possible to keep its submarine force at a desired level. You have to factor in the additional years for crew/maintenance/tactics training/development (and its refinement) to go with the actual induction of the vessel to achieve full operational capability.

Since Scorpenes are built modularly, the AIP module can be added at a later date and on later batches. German U-214 AIP module may be added instead of MESMA AIP. France may not want to do so. But once local production begins, German technical assistance on integrating their AIP module on Scorpene could be applied and all upgraded accordingly.

Ajay K
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31

Why ATV ?

Postby Ajay K » 12 Sep 2005 11:03

Folks, why go for a nuclear powered sub when the diesel sub can give you more endurance. Assume we build an ATV based on the bigger scaled version of Scorpene more like the Rubis Amethyste class of French attack submarines. The following link states that Turquoise SSK (diesel version) with Mesma AIP has more endurance (60 days compared to 40 days) than the nuclear powered version.

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

Check the last paragraph.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62673
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 12 Sep 2005 11:08

with SSNs the submerged limit is food and crew fatigue. all subs have a plant to convert seawater into fresh.
with SSK the submerged limit is food, fatigue and battery+AIP endurance.

SSBNs regularly remain submerged all thru a 3 month deployment. no AIP SSK can match that.

Plus they have much much higher sustained speed of 30+ knots can be kept up for days to cross entire oceans. SSKs would burn off their AIP long before at full power output.

AIP is not a panacea for SSN. secondly AIP may not scale up to the sub size needed to house VLS SLBMs - around 6000t is the minimum for that.

AIP enhances the survivability by reducing need to snorkel and charge battery. a SSN is still slow and short-legged compared with a real SSN.

Ajay K
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Ajay K » 12 Sep 2005 12:30

Singha Posted: 12 Sep 2005 05:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

with SSNs the submerged limit is food and crew fatigue. all subs have a plant to convert seawater into fresh.
with SSK the submerged limit is food, fatigue and battery+AIP endurance.

SSBNs regularly remain submerged all thru a 3 month deployment. no AIP SSK can match that.

Plus they have much much higher sustained speed of 30+ knots can be kept up for days to cross entire oceans. SSKs would burn off their AIP long before at full power output.

AIP is not a panacea for SSN. secondly AIP may not scale up to the sub size needed to house VLS SLBMs - around 6000t is the minimum for that.

AIP enhances the survivability by reducing need to snorkel and charge battery. a SSN is still slow and short-legged compared with a real SSN.


Much will depend on whether the ATV is a SSBN or SSN. But clearly as stated in the site the SSN can be better served by a diesel powered SSK with AIP.
Advantages for a diesel powered SSK.
a) Stealth and thus increased survivability
b) lower operational costs
c) endurance with AIP

There are disadvantages
a) Underwater speed.

However there are other questions that need to be answered.
Is ATV a SSN or SSBN ?
Why do we need SLBMs when we could live with nuke tipped SLCMs ? Think that is a credible second strike capability.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 12 Sep 2005 13:00

Diesel Electric Submarines
are basically just snorkellers. They travel about 20 ft underwater most of the time. For VERY short periods do they ever go deep underwater, but they have to be back to the surface to turn on the diesel engine to recharge.
AIP gives some additional underwater endurance, but as of today, it ain't amountin' to much.
There almost always isn't enough spare energy to run an oxygen generator from desalinated seawater either, and AFAIK no conventional sub currently deploys this capability.
Now the Nooklear sub is an entirely different beast altogether. Its deep underwater stay is only constrained by the exhausion of grub, and other consumables among others.
Most certainly, the quoted figure for the 'rubis' is an understatement of its real abilities. The other reason could be the small size of this sub allowing for limited stores, reducing underwater stay


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest