Indian Naval Discussion

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1988
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srin » 31 Dec 2012 19:42

Singha wrote:the LRSAM thing brings to notice our lack of a trials ship for radars, EW and missile/gun system. every major naval power incl Cheen have converted some old crates or commercial ships to this end.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... ew5iNWi8XQ
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/chi ... -ship.html



We've used INS Subadra for Dhanush missile tests, no ?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2413
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 31 Dec 2012 20:06

Bheeshma wrote:When did Shtil have a range of 60-70 km? Other than the 7 Delhi class follow on and 2 AC there are only P-17a's. So are we ordering 9 of them?

It looks like P-28s were included in the count and of course i don't see them having LRSAM so it looks like a mistake.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 376
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 31 Dec 2012 21:25

Bheeshma wrote:When did Shtil have a range of 60-70 km? Other than the 7 Delhi class follow on and 2 AC there are only P-17a's. So are we ordering 9 of them?


Should be only 15 warships...3x P-15A, 4x P-15B (reportedly with an extended range booster), 7x P-17A, 1x INS Vikrant

I don't think the VikAd will be fitted with the required sensors/launchers...requires too much structural modifications. Ditto for the Delhi class

But this is good news...like the USN, pretty much every new heavy warship will have fleet air defence capability

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby AbhiJ » 01 Jan 2013 00:34

How it would compare with other systems like Aster, ESSM?

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 01 Jan 2013 02:39

True it won't be there on Vik'ad but thr 7-P15a/B and hopefully 9 P-17a and hopefully retrofitted onto the B class frigates and S class.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1345
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JohnTitor » 01 Jan 2013 02:58

MoD clears mega deals for radars, missiles, Navy vessels, AWACS
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mod-c ... s/1052309/

In another significant decision, the ministry has given an exception to Israeli firm ELTA to reduce its offset obligations to just 10 per cent of the contract, down from the mandated 30 per cent. ELTA is in for a major deal for new generation air and missile defence radars — the armed forces have proposed to buy six of these for Rs 3,310 crore — that can detect and track incoming missiles and aircraft as well as direct defence systems.


Anyone have any idea why ELTA needs only reinvest 10%? Is offset obligations going to be the next scam?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Jan 2013 03:20

wig wrote:a series of New 120 km range surface to air missiles for new Navy warships

The older warships cannot be retrofitted with the system.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121231/nation.htm#5


Why can't older warships be retrofitted with the system? Is it a question of space for missiles and radar? Or something else?

titash
BRFite
Posts: 376
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 01 Jan 2013 04:45

Manish_Sharma wrote:Why can't older warships be retrofitted with the system? Is it a question of space for missiles and radar? Or something else?


The missiles themselves will require a large deck penetrating VLS, power cabling, gas/heat venting system, etc...currently the SA-N-7 system has reserved space to accommodate a smaller drum magazine and a single arm launcher. You would have to rip the decks apart and re-route major cabling, piping, etc

Having said that, this is the lesser part of the challenge. The SA-N-1 on D-54/D-55 were replaced with an 8-cell BrahMos VLS

The radar is a bigger challenge. You have a weaker mast to support a Top Plate radar, plus 4-6 illuminators located at different locations...all of which comes with associated power and communication cabling. You are trying to replace it with a large multifunction radar which requires a structurally stronger mast as well as significantly higher power requirements. Also, this heavy radar will need to be mounted as high as possible, and can affect center of gravity/topside loadings etc. Not to mention the mass of cabling that needs to be ripped out

Its pertinent to note that SCANFAR was mounted only on the USS Long Beach and the USS Enterprise, both designed to take these radars from the outset. All the AEGIS cruisers/destroyers are designed from the ground up. The 35 Sprunace/Kidd class destroyers were 8000+ ton warships, and had huge growth potential, but they never received the AEGIS package. The USS Norton Sound was an exception...it received all generations of US air defense systems...but then it was a large one-off technology demonstrator vessel

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Jan 2013 08:07

Just take a dekko at this Borei and its amazing cost,just under $800M.Compare this with the cost of a single Scorpene being built in India.I use this comparison to suggest that we should buy a line of Brahnmos armed conventional/AIP subs from Russia to quickly make up the fall in the IN's sub numbers which will halve within a few years.Pl. check the pics in the link and its interesting sail design.

http://rt.com/news/russian-noiseless-bo ... arine-106/

Silent sub: Russian noiseless Borei class nuclear submarine immersed
Published: 30 December, 2012, 17:26

Super-modern, powerful and almost noiseless Russian nuclear submarine Vladimir Monomakh has been put in water to become the third ship of the Borei project. The cruiser is about to begin sea trials and mooring to become fully operational in 2013.

­Vladimir Monomakh was laid down at Russia’s largest shipbuilding complex Sevmash, located on the shores of the White Sea in the town of Severodvinsk in northern Russia on March 19, 2006 – the 100th anniversary of the Russian submarine fleet.

­Borei-class submarine

Length: 170 m
Beam: 13.5 m
Draught: 10 m
Test depth: 450 m
Displacement:
14,720 tons surfaced
24,000 tons submerged
Speed: 29 knots (54 km/h)
Complement: 107 (55 officers)
Armament: 16-20 × Bulava SLBMs
6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes

It belongs to a class of missile strategic submarine cruisers with a new generation of nuclear reactor, which allows the submarine to dive to a depth of 480 meters. It can spend up to three months in autonomous navigation and, thanks to the latest achievements in the reduction of noise, it is almost silent compared to previous generations of submarines.

The submarine is armed with the new missile system, which has from 16 to 20 solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles Bulava (SS-NX-30 by NATO classification). The rocket is able to overcome any prospective missile defense system.

On August 27, 2011, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on a successful test of Bulava to investigate its maximum range. The missile was launched from the White Sea, flew 9,300km in just 33 minutes, and then fell in the specified area in the Pacific Ocean.

All Borei class submarines are equipped with a floating rescue chamber designed to fit in the whole crew.
Nuclear submarine (NS) "Yuri Dolgoruky" undergoing sea trials. (RIA Novosti)
Nuclear submarine (NS) "Yuri Dolgoruky" undergoing sea trials. (RIA Novosti)
The Borei family

The first and head submarine of Borei class, Yury Dolgoruky, has already completed the test program and is to be officially adopted by the Russian Navy on Sunday. Construction of the missile carrier is approximately estimated at around US$770 million, while other Borei class submarines are believed to cost less.

“The hoisting of the flag and the signing of the acceptance act is to be adopted at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on Sunday, December 30,” the Rubin design bureau that designed the submarine said in a statement on Saturday.

Another missile cruiser of this project, the Aleksandr Nevsky, is undergoing tests, according to Borisov. While a fourth, more advanced submarine, the Knyaz Vladimir, with enhanced technical characteristics and increased ammunition is currently being built.

Over the next eight years Russia plans to have built 10 Borei class submarines altogether, according to the state armaments program of 2011-2020. All Borei class submarines are believed to provide a basis of naval strategic nuclear forces of Russia in the coming decades.
The nuclear submarine (NS) "Yuri Dolgoruky" in the area of the JSC "Sevmash". (RIA Novosti)

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby alexis » 01 Jan 2013 11:13

^^
The costs are for Russian Navy. If we buy the same, the cost would be more than a billion each!

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Jan 2013 11:45

This offset policy is a joke, none of the vendors follow it.

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sourab_c » 01 Jan 2013 12:30

^Do not forget the money invested in R&D and years of experience when analyzing costs.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1345
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JohnTitor » 01 Jan 2013 14:51

Aditya_V wrote:This offset policy is a joke, none of the vendors follow it.

I'm sure they would if the government made no "exceptions".. my spidey senses are telling me there is something fishy about that exception. Why was this provided? How does the Gvt justify this, considering the whole offset thing was supposed to nurture our own MIC. This smells of corruption.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Jan 2013 15:18

The cost of the 10 yr. lease for the Akula-2 is reported to be $1B,however,this includes the unspelt support and tech assistance provided for the ATV,where a few hundred Russian technical experts have been engaged in for a few years.The deal has been part of a large package which included for the Gorshkov and its aircraft,for extra cost.After 10 years it is most likely that the sub will be sold to us for a nominal sum,depreciated value,whatever.Let's take a look at the Scorpene deal for comparison from DID's extensive report.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ted-01194/

ndia’s Multi-billion Dollar Scorpene Sub Contract
Dec 06, 2012

Introduction.
India’s submarine fleet currently consists of 16 submarines, about 13 of which are operational. Its Foxtrot Class boats can no longer be counted on, and its U209 derivatives from HDW are unlikely to last beyond 2015. With Pakistan acquiring modern submarines, and Chinese submarine building exploding, India’s future submarine fleet became an obvious national priority.

In 2005, India confirmed that it would buy 6 Franco-Spanish Scorpene diesel submarines, with an option for 6 more and extensive technology transfer agreements. The Scorpene deal had simmered on the back-burner for several years, and media reports touted a deal as “close” in 2004, but nothing was finalized until late 2005. The cost had been subject to varying estimates over the life of those multi-year negotiations, and continued to change after the contract was awarded, but the final figure for the first 6 boats is now generally accepted as being about $4 billion. Unfortunately, 7 years after that deal was signed, “Project 75” has yet to field a single submarine. A poor Indian procurement approach, and local inefficiency, are pushing the country’s overall submarine force toward an aging crisis. This DID FOCUS article covers the Scorpene deal and its structure, adds key contracts and new developments, and offers insights into the larger naval picture beyond India.

India’s New Submarines: The Deal
Schedule, Cost & Plans
Timeline & Industrial Arrangements
The Scorpene Class
The AIP Option
Scorpene Project: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
Appendix A: India’s Current Submarine Force, and Rival Navies
Appendix B: A Final, Nuclear Note
Appendix C: Additional Readings & Sources

India’s New Submarines: The Deal

Schedule, Cost & Plans

The Scorpene project will kick off The Indian Navy’s long-term goal of acquiring indigenous capability in design, development and construction of submarines. These “Project 75” submarines will all be built in India, and expected delivery dates for the first 6 were set at 2012-2017. DCNS remained committed to those dates, until everyone had to bow to the obvious and begin promising 1st delivery in 2015, with deliveries to the Navy running from 2015-2018. Given the record to date, and the difference between schedule slippage of 1st vs. final deliveries, it’s reasonable to expect deliveries beyond 2018.

Costs are also slipping.

Planned costs for the Project 75 deal had a range of reported figures, until a contract was signed. In the end, the reported figure was Rs 15,400 crore, or $3.5 billion converted equivalent at the time. Subsequent auditor reports indicated that the program would actually cost about 18,798 crore (about $4 billion), and escalations to 20,798 crore/ $4.38 billion and then 23,562 crore/ $4.56 billion have followed. That makes for about a 25.4% cost increase from the auditors’ baseline.

Tracking actual contracts is more difficult. Contracts signed as of August 2009 totaled INR 207.98 billion/ Rs 20,798 crore. The contracts were signed at different times, and will be paid over different periods, so a true currency conversion is difficult. A weakening American dollar and Euro have cushioned the increases somewhat, but most of the project’s cost involves local currency purchases. Contracts reportedly include:

Rs 6,315 crore contract with DCNS’ predecessor for transfer of technology, combat systems and construction design.
Rs 1,062 crore contract with MBDA for sea-skimming Exocet missiles and related systems
Rs 5,888 crore contract with MDL for local submarine construction
Rs 3,553 crore set aside for taxes
Rs 2,160 crore for other project requirements
Rs 2,000 crore added in March 2010 to cover added finalized costs of the “MDL procured material (MPM) packages”
Rs 2,764 crore unaccounted for yet in public releases, but envisaged in final INR 235 billion program costs.

Most of the delays, and many of the cost increases, are attributable to India’s slow decision making, and lack of readiness. Meanwhile, India’s existing fleet continues to age, and the size of India’s submarine fleet will become a serious concern by 2016 or so.

“Project 75” had options for another 6 submarines, but that option has been replaced by a 6-boat “Project 75i” competition. Introducing another competition offers the prospect of improved technology, but it also adds industrial disruption if another design is chosen. India’s deeply flawed procurement process creates a further risk, which is that a new competition will become bogged down in allegations and/or protests, and fail to deliver anything.

If India can overcome its government’s own obstacles to fielding an effective submarine force, reports by Indian media describe a long-term desire to manufacture up to 24 submarines in a phased manner. Admiral Prakash has confirmed that target, and used the objective of “24 subs in 30 years.” Time will tell if actual budgets and shipbuilding performance can match the Navy’s appetites.

DID reminds our readers that long term plans for major capital acquisitions have a way of shrinking over time as budgetary tradeoffs are made – 32 DD (X) destroyers for the USA became 12, and then 3. Nevertheless, options and/or future schedule delays could easily keep submarine production for India going to 2030 or beyond, and the buildup of China’s forces in particular is likely to keep submarines high on India’s defense priority list.


Excerpts:
(Nice to see BR quoted in the article for info on the kilo,U-209 and Foxtrot classes)

Dec 5/12: Project 75i. India’s cabinet Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for buying “Project 75i”, India’s next 6 submarines. A global RFP is reportedly due “very soon,” and the Indian government has reportedly decided to spend up to $10 billion/ Rs 55,000 crore on India’s future submarine force.

Project 75i diesel-electric SSK subs will have air-independent propulsion, and India is also looking to equip them with conventional land attack missiles. DCNS could offer the AIM-2000 Scorpene with the MESMA AIP, and might be able to offer integration of MBDA’s developmental MdCN cruise missile. The MdCN is already slated for DCNS’ SSN Barracuda Class nuclear fast attack submarines, and the right electronic commonalities could give any French proposal a notable advantage over German and Spanish competitors. Indian government | Zee News.

Oct 28/12: Torpedoes. More headaches for India’s Black Shark torpedo buy. As if their direct competitor’s complaint wasn’t enough, a probe is now underway into India’s EUR 560 million purchase of 12 AW101 VIP helicopters. AgustaWestland is also a Finmeccanica company, and there are several cases of India’s blacklist laws being invoked against firms on the basis of mere corruption allegations, with no available proof.

The Rs 1,700 crore buy of 98 torpedoes for the Scorpene fleet was expected to be followed by a similar buy for Project 75i’s 6 submarines, and possibly a 3rd buy to plus up stocks and equip the new SSBN Arihant Class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. That could mean a total of up to Rs 5,100 crore, or about EUR 733 million / $947 million at risk given current conversions.

As for Atlas Elektronik’s claims that the torpedo bid was rigged (vid. Jan 31/11 entry), the Indian MoD’s Acquisitions Wing, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju have all rejected the claims, despite strong circumstantial evidence. India MoD | India’s Business Standard.

March 23/12: SEC sub-contract. DCNS India announces a Scorpene sub-contract and transfer of technology with SEC Industries Pvt Ltd of Hyderabad, India. The deal for hull hatches, cofferdam doors, knuckle hoses, ballast vent valves, High Pressure air cylinders, weapon handling and storage system is worth about Rs 310 crore/ EUR 50 million. To make this work, DCNS will provide SEC with full plans for the components, training for over 40 SEC personnel at DCNS facilities during 2012-2013, plus 5 years of on-the-job training and support for manufacturing and quality control at SEC in Hyderabad.

SEC is known in Indian defense circles as a manufacturer of missile airframes and components, and signed a deal with Israel’s IAI back in 2008. The company’s previous experience had been with heavy pump set and road-roller equipment. DCNS.
2011

March 19/12: Delays. The 1st Indian Scorpene sub is now confirmed as scheduled for delivery in June 2015, barring further delays, and program cost is now confirmed at Rs 23,562 crore (currently about $4.56 billion).

The original schedule was for delivery by December 2012, with submarines arriving each year until December 2017. The new official schedule has deliveries beginning 2.5 years later in June 2015, with submarines arriving every 9 months until September 2018. Costs are up about 25.4% from the original CAG-audited cost of Rs 18,798 crore after the deal was signed, or 87% over the program’s initial 2002 figure. Indian MoD | New Kerala | PTI

July 29/11: Rear Admiral MT Moraes takes over as the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Submarines) at Delhi, to look after the planning and acquisition of submarines.

Rear Admiral Srikant is also slated to take over as Flag Officer Submarines (FOSM) based at Visakhapatnam, this is the indian Navy’s class authority on submarines, responsible for defining standards, policies and procedures for their operations and maintenance. Rear Admiral G Ashok Kumar will take over as Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) at Kochi. India MoD.

June 8/11: Sub-contractor. DCNS India Pvt. Ltd. signs an undisclosed contract with Flash Forge India Pvt. Ltd., an ISO 9001:2008 certified manufacturer of customized special material forgings based in Visakhapatnam.

This first contract with Flash Forge for the manufacturing of mechanical equipment is the conclusion of a long process for DCNS, which involved identification of potential partners, audits of the manufacturing and quality processes, qualification, and then a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP). With a lot of the advance work out of the way, DCNS expects to announce other local contracts in the near future. DCNS.

June 6/11: IANS relays a report in the May 2011 issue of India Strategic, quoting DCNS India Managing Director Bernard Buisson to say that 2 Scorpene combat systems have been delivered to Mazagon Docks Ltd. (MDL). They’re in the process of integrating the first one.

Buisson reportedly said that there are about 20 – 25 French engineers assisting in technology transfer, and added that DCNS has had technical discussions with the Indian Navy on installing MESMA air independent propulsion (AIP) systems on board the last 2 submarines. That move would raise the subs’ cost, and DCNS said they are (still) awaiting the Navy’s response. IANS | India Strategic.

May 18/11: Delays. The Times of India reports that 2 Indian naval crews will be going to France “after some months” to train for operating the SSK Scorpene fast attack submarines. The article notes that by 2020, India’s fleet will comprise just 5 Kilo Class and 4 U209 Shishumar class boats available, and quotes an unnamed official:

“We now hope to get the first Scorpene by August 2015. Each submarine will have just a 36-member crew since automation levels in them are very high,”.... “The first Scorpene will be ‘launched’ into water in 2013, and will be ready for commissioning by August 2015 after extensive harbour and sea trials,” said a top DCNS official. “The target is to deliver the sixth submarine by 2018, one every nine months after the first one in 2015. The third and fourth submarines are already under construction at MDL….”

April 6/11: Stretch the Shishumars? The Scorpene project’s lateness, and uncertainties around Project 75I award and delivery dates, have led India’s Navy to talk with Germany’s HDW about upgrading the capabilities, and extending the lifespans, of its existing U209 Shishumar Class boats, inducted from 1989-1994. Zee News.

Feb 16/11: P75i. Indian media quote Indian navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma, who reiterates that the follow-on program to the Scorpene deal is already cleared by India’s government. The result could add 6 more Scorpenes to the order books, or it could result in a parallel program to build another model. With 7 of India’s 14 active submarines due for retirement by 2015, and the Scorpene program 3 years late because of self-inflicted delays, the Indian government’s unwise choice to avoid building any Project 75 Scorpene submarines in France has created a looming crisis for the Navy.

Verma says that the Navy is going through responses to the September 2009 RFI, and hopes to be able to issue a tender in 2011. Responses have reportedly included DCNS (Scorpene AIP), Germany’s HDW (U214) and its Swedish Kockums subsidiary (several options, incl. the forthcoming A26 design), Navantia (S-80), and Russia’s Rosoboronexport (Amur 1650), He adds that Project 75i is looking for an improved combat management system, better sensors and detection range, and the certain inclusion of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology. Reports place the order total at $11 billion, but that seems high even if it includes both the current $4.38 billion for Project 75’s 6 subs, and a Project 75i program for another 6 diesel-electric boats. Time will tell.

The current plan is for India to order 2 submarines built at the winning foreign shipyard, and build 3 at Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL) in Mumbai, and 1 at Hindustan Shipyard in Visakaphatnam. That’s similar to the Project 75 plan pushed by India’s Navy, who wanted 2 boats built abroad because they feared that delays and performance issues might create problems for the Scorpene. Political favoritism overruled that request, and the feared scenario has come to pass. This time, the government is showing slightly more flexibility, by approving the plan to have 2 submarines built abroad in order to avoid a complete crash in fleet numbers. On the other hand, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) refused to accept the recommendation the Project 75i avoid MDL, due to that shipyard’s existing workload. Instead, the government assumes that it would be able to build 3 more submarines, which may even be of a different type, on an accelerated production schedule, while still delivering all 6 Project 75 Scorpene boats to the revised schedule. Yeah, right. IANS | Times of India.

Jan 31/11: Torpedo trouble? India’s Central Vigilance Commissioner has opened an inquiry into Project 75’s planned buy of 98 heavyweight torpedoes, after Atlas Elektronik GmbH executive director Kai Pelzer reportedly lodged a direct complaint. The complaint refers reportedly refers to irregularities in the conduct of the procurement process, including specific charges of corruption. The CVC inquiry was ordered in December 2010.

Atlas Electroniks’ complaint is straightforward: the competition was rigged. The RFP makes the torpedo vendor responsible for seamless integration and/or interface of the torpedo with the SUBTICS combat system. The Finmeccanica/DCNS Blackshark is the Scorpene’s default torpedo, but Atlas had to have their plan approved by the MoD’s Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). That approval was given, but Atlas’ integration proposal was failed in the user trials. India’s DPP, Para 13, doesn’t allow requirements that “prejudice the technical choices by being narrow and tailor made.” The TEC’s approval escaped that trap, but Para 70a allows only one remaining vendor after trials. Atlas says this was the Navy’s intent all along.

The inquiry suspends India’s planned buy of Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes from Finmeccanica subsidiary Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquel (WASS), until this can be sorted out. Atlas Elektronik Gmbh was offering their DM2A4 Seahake. Both torpedoes feature advanced seeker heads, and can be controlled by a trailing fiber optic cable. Defense World | Economic Times of India | Subsequent Business Standard coverage.


https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/20120906.aspx

An Indian Tale Of Woe

September 6, 2012: India's effort to build the first six subs (French Scorpenes), under license, has been delayed several times and the price has gone up to $5 billion ($834 million each). While this effort will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines, all that will be wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials already caused numerous delays and cost overruns during negotiations to build these diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is now three years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started. The delays and mismanagement have so far increased the cost of the $4 billion project by 25 percent. The original plan was to have the first Indian built Scorpene delivered at the end of this year. But now, because of problems getting the construction facilities and skilled workmen ready, the first Scorpene won't be delivered until 2015, with one each year after that until all six are delivered. That schedule is subject to change, and probably will, for the worse.

All this ineffective urgency is in play because India's submarine fleet is dying of old age and new boats are not going to arrive in time. It's not like this was a surprise, but the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy has long been noted as slow, sloppy, and stubborn, especially in the face of demands that it speed up. The twisted tale of the tardy submarines is particularly painful.

The plan was to have a dozen new subs in service by the end of the decade. At present, there will be (with a bit of luck) six of them in service by then. The procurement bureaucracy is still seeking a supplier for the second six diesel-electric subs. This second six subs might begin arriving by the end of the decade. It's hard to say, although the defense procurement nabobs speak of "fast tracking" this project, but long-time observers of these officials are not expecting speed.

There's some urgency to all this because this year, five of India's 16 diesel-electric subs (10 Kilo and two Foxtrot class Russian built boats and four German Type 209s) were to be retired (some are already semi-retired because of age and infirmity). Because of the Scorpene delays, the Type 209s are being kept in service (but not allowed out to sea much) for several more years. That leaves India with 14 subs. But in the next year or so several of the older Kilos will reach retirement age. Thus, by the time the first Scorpene arrives in 2015, India will only have five or six working subs. India believes it needs at least 18 non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China.

India is also building and buying nuclear subs. India received a Russian Akula nuclear attack (SSN) sub earlier this year. This one is on lease with the option to buy. Indian SSNs and SSBNs (missile carrying boats) are under development, as they have been for decades.

After the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade, in 2005, India finally signed a deal to buy six French Scorpene class boats. The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components and India has had some problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. While some problems were expected (India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades), the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work or just getting in the way.

The Scorpenes are similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan recently bought. The first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in Pakistan. The Scorpenes purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation between French and Spanish sub builders. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried). The Scorpene is a little heavier (1,700 tons), has a smaller crew (32), and is a little faster. It has six 533mm torpedo tubes and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). The Pakistanis have an option to retrofit AIP in their current two Agostas.

While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani boats, both because of less advanced technology and less well trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to expand their naval presence into the Indian Ocean. Thus the delays and cost overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. But at the rate India is going, it will be nearly a decade before all six of the Scorpenes are in service. At that point, India would have about a dozen subs (including nuclear powered models under construction). China will have over 60 boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear. China does have a lot for its warships to deal with off its coasts and in the Western Pacific but it does retain the capability of putting more subs off the Indian coast than can the Indian Navy.


So,after years of bumbling,the Scorpenes are going to cost,each,almost the same cost as a Russian nuclear powered Akula-2 which at least 4-5 times larger and carries infinitely far more firepower,range and endurance,etc.,etc.! Why on earth should we buy/build more in a follow on to the 6 being built,that too the first four WITHOUT AIP,with AIP an option only for the last 2. simply asinine!

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 01 Jan 2013 17:18

Philip wrote:So,after years of bumbling,the Scorpenes are going to cost,each,almost the same cost as a Russian nuclear powered Akula-2 which at least 4-5 times larger and carries infinitely far more firepower,range and endurance,etc.,etc.! Why on earth should we buy/build more in a follow on to the 6 being built,that too the first four WITHOUT AIP,with AIP an option only for the last 2. simply asinine!


Perfect 8)

Project 75 I is quoted in reports as around $10-11 billion for 6 subs and tech.
Wiki quotes £1,160M each (boats 1-3), £747M each (boats 4-6) for Astute class subs
Borei class is quoted at around $890million (source Wiki)
For both the above i am assuming the R&D effort is done and both are cutting edge. We will never get the British once but it is probably considered the best today.
So the alternative to Project 75 I , order 6 Borei class subs overtly/covertly , purchase/lease any option will do and in return
Russia helps us further in setting up our own SSN /SSBN production line
In due course of time we have a fleet of all nuke subs patrolling across Asia and far armed with pretty good weapon capability :wink:

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2413
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 01 Jan 2013 19:14

Philip wrote:Just take a dekko at this Borei and its amazing cost,just under $800M.Compare this with the cost of a single Scorpene being built in India.I use this comparison to suggest that we should buy a line of Brahnmos armed conventional/AIP subs from Russia to quickly make up the fall in the IN's sub numbers which will halve within a few years.Pl. check the pics in the link and its interesting sail design.

Philip we discussed this to death, Lada has far too many problems from propulsion to weapon's system and lets not even get into AIP system. And not to mention fitting Brahmos will diminish its capabilities and would require extensive testing. One thing i am happy about is we didn't invest in another L&T line that builds Amur. We already have indigenous proven U-209 design we could have cranked out cheaply to augment our numbers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Jan 2013 19:21

iirc there are a couple of unfinished Oscar class hulls sitting in drydocks incomplete.

however these are too big subs to go prowling the green water of the south china and east china sea.

we are better off building more Arihant sized vessels in different configs using a 2nd line under L&T ( which anyways makes some parts and hull sections for the HSL line already), we better speed up the N-sub program because Cheen is moving to increase its n-sub fleet substantially and the best defence against such threats is LRMP and n-subs.

we have been too wedded to the idea that 2nd like of sub has to be SSK. there is nothing in the Koran and hadith that mandates that.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 01 Jan 2013 20:13

two oscar class subs are there which are unfinished

K-135 Volgograd 949A September 2, 1993 Construction maybe restarted[1]
K-165 Barnaul 949A April 1994 Construction stopped
launched incomplete

*source wiki

the idea is not bad as Russian navy is activating the oscar class & maintaining the older one's

the only thing is that , does Indian navy want a biggggg sub of 12k-15k tons for its use

also no VLS or mention of missile launch capability..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Jan 2013 20:43

Oscar size is too big for east asia ops.

It had some couple dozen huge inclined tubes between single and double hull for granit missiles.

A smaller arihant size boat with 12-16 nirbhay in vl system and another 30 hwt/asm is a lot more versatile and useful from our context as we do not expect to face chinese cvbg off our coast anytime soon.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Jan 2013 20:55

Singha wrote:we have been too wedded to the idea that 2nd like of sub has to be SSK.


Finally! Well said.

Only and only an SSN can keep up with a surface fleet. By 2025, we'll have three carrier battle groups which necessitates at the very least 3 SSNs (the INS Chakra lease runs out in 2022). An SSK is adequate for mining harbours and setting ambushes but any undersea offensive action (especially in hostile territory) needs an SSN. The same applies if Chinese SSN/SSBNs are to be shadowed in the Indian Ocean.

The second related idea assumed to be fact (and played up by Russophiles/Russians) is that only Russia is willing to provide us with nuclear submarines. Given that the western (particularly European) defence industry is going through tough times with no relief in site a $10-15 billion order is more than sufficient incentive for the UK and France to overcome what squeamishness selling such prized technology incurs. With India-US relations rosier than ever before (with the ongoing 'Pacific pivot') even the Virginia class may not be completely out of question.

There's certainly a precedent to such an approval even if it was never exercised:




One's name was Rubis, her rival's Trafalgar. The first was a French submarine, the second British. Neither sub class now guards Canada's Far North sovereignty. Yet some 18 years ago, Ottawa almost decided to buy up to a dozen such nuclear-powered U-boats to defend its long-contested claim over the water and seabed of those vast polar territories in red on your map.

Ottawa Citizen


2011 - Canada’s defense minister is “hinting” that Ottawa might be interested in adding nuclear fast-attack submarines to its navy for tomorrow’s critical under-ice patrols.

DoD Buzz



Forget the Scorpene, U-214 and Amur. The Astute, Barracuda, Yasen (and possibly Virginia) class is what we ought to be looking at.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 01 Jan 2013 21:42

Viv S wrote:
Singha wrote:we have been too wedded to the idea that 2nd like of sub has to be SSK.



The second related idea assumed to be fact (and played up by Russophiles/Russians) is that only Russia is willing to provide us with nuclear submarines. Given that the western (particularly European) defence industry is going through tough times with no relief in site a $10-15 billion order is more than sufficient incentive for the UK and France to overcome what squeamishness selling such prized technology incurs. With India-US relations rosier than ever before (with the ongoing 'Pacific pivot') even the Virginia class may not be completely out of question.

There's certainly a precedent to such an approval even if it was never exercised:




One's name was Rubis, her rival's Trafalgar. The first was a French submarine, the second British. Neither sub class now guards Canada's Far North sovereignty. Yet some 18 years ago, Ottawa almost decided to buy up to a dozen such nuclear-powered U-boats to defend its long-contested claim over the water and seabed of those vast polar territories in red on your map.

Ottawa Citizen


2011 - Canada’s defense minister is “hinting” that Ottawa might be interested in adding nuclear fast-attack submarines to its navy for tomorrow’s critical under-ice patrols.

DoD Buzz



Forget the Scorpene, U-214 and Amur. The Astute, Barracuda, Yasen (and possibly Virginia) class is what we ought to be looking at.


The political capital that Canada has - member of NATO and its geography with them - is different from the one we have built up with the US i.e. still nowhere near what we enjoy with the Russians. The French while mercenary and having been happier to help India in matters related to N-technology still align strategically with NATO/US policy. They may have lobbied for us in the civilian nuclear deal but they still waited for a green signal from the White House.

Asking for Russia-like support on our nuclear military capability therefore would entail India having to commit much more support to U.S. geostrategic policy e.g.:
1. Vote with the U.S. in the U.N. on Iran
2. Deploy boots on the ground in the GWOT-wherever that pops up next.
3. Become in East Asia vs the Chinese what France was in the Cold War for the U.S. vs. the Russians. (I personally think this is a matter of time though)

Also, it would be a folly to automatically assume that the lure of $$$ would give India leverage - The Israelis and Japanese clamored for the F22 Raptor without success (though they seem to be having more success with the F35), and we have nowhere near the kind of political capital that those two countries have built up with the Yanks.

So, yes we should be looking at non-Russian suppliers, but there's a lot more "give" we'll have to do before we "take."

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 01 Jan 2013 23:04

Shonu wrote:MoD clears mega deals for radars, missiles, Navy vessels, AWACS
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mod-c ... s/1052309/

In another significant decision, the ministry has given an exception to Israeli firm ELTA to reduce its offset obligations to just 10 per cent of the contract, down from the mandated 30 per cent. ELTA is in for a major deal for new generation air and missile defence radars — the armed forces have proposed to buy six of these for Rs 3,310 crore — that can detect and track incoming missiles and aircraft as well as direct defence systems.


Anyone have any idea why ELTA needs only reinvest 10%? Is offset obligations going to be the next scam?


Balance amount is invested in 2014 election funds

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Jan 2013 23:08

RajitO wrote:The political capital that Canada has - member of NATO and its geography with them - is different from the one we have built up with the US i.e. still nowhere near what we enjoy with the Russians.


The NATO has been more or less redundant since the collapse of Soviet Union. While Canada is and will no doubt remain far closer, US foreign policy today is being driven by the power equations in the Asia rather than Europe (where Canada was once vital to the NATO).

Also, the history and scale of Russian cooperation with China since 1991 would elicit a degree of skepticism if not downright cynicism about the nature of Indo-Russian relations.


The French while mercenary and having been happier to help India in matters related to N-technology still align strategically with NATO/US policy. They may have lobbied for us in the civilian nuclear deal but they still waited for a green signal from the White House.


'Waited for a green signal'. How so? They were involved in lobbying for an NSG exemption for India from the early stages (unfortunately without an American sized diplomatic clout to back it) and signed a nuclear deal within days of it being granted.


Asking for Russia-like support on our nuclear military capability therefore would entail India having to commit much more support to U.S. geostrategic policy e.g.:
1. Vote with the U.S. in the U.N. on Iran
2. Deploy boots on the ground in the GWOT-wherever that pops up next.
3. Become in East Asia vs the Chinese what France was in the Cold War for the U.S. vs. the Russians. (I personally think this is a matter of time though)


Backing the Indian position during the NSG vote was far more critical to India's nuclear military capability than the possible sale of SSNs but happened without any Indian military commitment in Afghanistan or Iraq. Except for one vote against Iran at the IAEA, India's position with regard to Iran too has remain more or less stable.

I partially agree with the third point but I don't see it as a concession being granted. The Chinese position on Tawang has hardened over the last two decades as has its intransigence over the South China Sea dispute. Its only natural for India and the US (plus Japan and Vietnam) to move closer. But unlike France remained a member of the NATO while withdrawing from the command structure, India will not get involved in any overt military alliance.


Also, it would be a folly to automatically assume that the lure of $$$ would give India leverage - The Israelis and Japanese clamored for the F22 Raptor without success (though they seem to be having more success with the F35), and we have nowhere near the kind of political capital that those two countries have built up with the Yanks.


Its not as layered a hierarchy as it once was. Certain items like the B-2 and F-22 are completely off the table. Most of the remainder is available to India in broadly the same conditions as those applying to formal US allies (Polaris/Trident being the possible exception). That said, yes the Virginia class is a prized weapon and export clearance remains unlikely.

Still leaves the Astute class, Barracuda class and Yasen class in the running.

So, yes we should be looking at non-Russian suppliers, but there's a lot more "give" we'll have to do before we "take."


The British and the French would appreciate the money and the US is looking for a counterweight to China. We've got a fairly good bargaining position.
Last edited by Viv S on 01 Jan 2013 23:13, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2346
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 01 Jan 2013 23:10

Also bear in mind that most of Russian equipment has smaller time between breakdowns and poor spare support as we have learnt in the case of the Chakra. Developing indigenous capability is the only way out. Looking for handouts does not make one strong - but only dependent.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 01 Jan 2013 23:29

Vivek K wrote:Developing indigenous capability is the only way out.


That would have been ideal but unfortunately we're still decades away from a domestic boat in the Astute class. The Arihant class being the first of its kind aren't likely to be quiet enough for anything other than deterrence patrols even if they're a lot better than the first generation of Chinese SSBNs. In any event, SSBNs aren't likely to be employed in combat under normal circumstances.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 02 Jan 2013 00:20

Viv S wrote:
RajitO wrote:The political capital that Canada has - member of NATO and its geography with them - is different from the one we have built up with the US i.e. still nowhere near what we enjoy with the Russians.


The NATO has been more or less redundant since the collapse of Soviet Union. While Canada is and will no doubt remain far closer, US foreign policy today is being driven by the power equations in the Asia rather than Europe (where Canada was once vital to the NATO).

Also, the history and scale of Russian cooperation with China since 1991 would elicit a degree of skepticism if not downright cynicism about the nature of Indo-Russian relations.


The French while mercenary and having been happier to help India in matters related to N-technology still align strategically with NATO/US policy. They may have lobbied for us in the civilian nuclear deal but they still waited for a green signal from the White House.


'Waited for a green signal'. How so? They were involved in lobbying for an NSG exemption for India from the early stages (unfortunately without an American sized diplomatic clout to back it) and signed a nuclear deal within days of it being granted.


Asking for Russia-like support on our nuclear military capability therefore would entail India having to commit much more support to U.S. geostrategic policy e.g.:
1. Vote with the U.S. in the U.N. on Iran
2. Deploy boots on the ground in the GWOT-wherever that pops up next.
3. Become in East Asia vs the Chinese what France was in the Cold War for the U.S. vs. the Russians. (I personally think this is a matter of time though)


Backing the Indian position during the NSG vote was far more critical to India's nuclear military capability than the possible sale of SSNs but happened without any Indian military commitment in Afghanistan or Iraq. Except for one vote against Iran at the IAEA, India's position with regard to Iran too has remain more or less stable.

I partially agree with the third point but I don't see it as a concession being granted. The Chinese position on Tawang has hardened over the last two decades as has its intransigence over the South China Sea dispute. Its only natural for India and the US (plus Japan and Vietnam) to move closer. But unlike France remained a member of the NATO while withdrawing from the command structure, India will not get involved in any overt military alliance.


Also, it would be a folly to automatically assume that the lure of $$$ would give India leverage - The Israelis and Japanese clamored for the F22 Raptor without success (though they seem to be having more success with the F35), and we have nowhere near the kind of political capital that those two countries have built up with the Yanks.


Its not as layered a hierarchy as it once was. Certain items like the B-2 and F-22 are completely off the table. Most of the remainder is available to India in broadly the same conditions as those applying to formal US allies (Polaris/Trident being the possible exception). That said, yes the Virginia class is a prized weapon and export clearance remains unlikely.

Still leaves the Astute class, Barracuda class and Yasen class in the running.

So, yes we should be looking at non-Russian suppliers, but there's a lot more "give" we'll have to do before we "take."


The British and the French would appreciate the money and the US is looking for a counterweight to China. We've got a fairly good bargaining position.


1. To think that NATO is redundant since collapse of SU ignores its increased membership since that event, ironically with new members coming from Warsaw Pact countries which has seen Putin and friends plan their own retribution e.g Georgia. NATO has been the U.S.'s default proxy from IFOR in the Balkans to the current ISAF in Afghanistan, and the facts is it has never been more active.

2. France...just because "independent" France may take the lead on nuclear cooperation with India, like they did with the recent attacks on Libya, does not mean that there is not coordination and "choreography" at the highest levels with the U.S./NATO. The French's famed mercenary ways also have their limits e.g when they left the Argentinians in 1982 high and dry after cutting off supplies of Exocets.

3. The fact that NATO countries cannot and will not provide the fig leaf proxy to the U.S. in its impending showdown with the Chinese in East Asia is a huge opportunity for India. Ironically, neo-con think tanks like CNAS and experts like Robert Kaplan have taken the lead in backchanneling this very idea for the past couple of years with the Indian national security apparatus. BUT...

4. ...n-subs are a "redline" that no one in the Western hemisphere will cross for India just yet, especially as long as we have a self-defeating national security policy wrt China with uncomfortable echoes of Nehruvian times, which makes the U.S. see us a very different ally as compared to Israel and Japan.

...But it's a good problem to have, and all it may take is an overzealous PLAN Destroyer Captain and an adventurous IN P-8I Mission Commander to resolve!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2013 03:30

The problems that the Astute class is experiencing right now makes it amusing to suggest acquiring the same,that is if the RN/UK will give us the tech for the same.No chance that either the US or UK will ever give us their most secret UW tech.This is a pipe dream! The US is unwilling to give Britain its closest ally JSF tech,forget about India getting cutting edge sub-tech!

If one has read the IN's requirements,a conventional sub armed with Brahmos is required.Hence the recent UW launch.That means that only a Russian conventional boat is possible,which can fit the bill.NO western conventional boat design in production now will be large enough to carry B'mos or will be allowed to by the Russians and the costs of their conventional boats as shown is prohibitively expensive.The Amur is now in production for the Ru Navy,worth checking out,otherwise upgraded Kilos which are still in production both for Russia and other nations, with AIP + B'mos, is an option to replace older boats.These two are the most cost-effective solutions to the problem of replacement of conventional subs.These boats are being built at a rapid rate and would be the fastest way to augment the fleet's rapidly declining numbers.Any new dsign will take a few years to fructify and another decade in building them,simply unacceptable.

This leaves us with the other option of building more N-boats at home.Let's be serious here,our sub-building capacity for N-boats is abysmally slow if only one yard is engaged upon the task.There is simply no way that we can build simultaneously a second line of SSGNs when the MOD is unwilling to allow pvt. yards to build subs and only L&T would be able to build a nuclear boat.

Therefore,I feel that the foll. route should be adopted.Acquire at least two more Akulas to join the Chakra,so that at least one is always available in a crisis.Accelerate as fast as poss. the larger ATV-2 design,perhaps skipping a third Arihant sized sub, where at least 12-16 ICBMs can be carried by the sub.We need 5 SSBNs at least for a min. underwater strategic deterrent against China.Thanks to the upgraded longer ranged B'mos missiles,our conventional subs with the same could be used as optional deterrent if need be against Pak until we have a dozen home built N-boats in the water.The conventional AIP boats could be acquired/built abroad to save time as all our yards will be tasked with the priority of building N-boats indigenously.The option of allowing a pvt. yard to acquire the capability of building conventional AIP subs must be explored,it could build a few of the new class of AIP/B'mos conventional boats.We just cannot depend upon only MDL and HSL to build subs.MDL can labour on with its Scorpene construction and a few extra follow on boats,if found economical ,as well as the option being studied of upgrading the U-209s too.Ideally,it should switch from building Scorpenes,etc.,to SSGNs,so that SSBNs can be built at Vizag while it builds SSGNs at Bombay-with L&T's input as well in building sub components, as primary task.This will be the fastest way in which we can build at home both SSGNs and SSBNs and have at least 1/3 of the sub fleet (36 subs) nuclear powered.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 02 Jan 2013 09:43

Philip wrote:No chance that either the US or UK will ever give us their most secret UW tech.This is a pipe dream!


Mostly agree but I do not think it is impossible - we'll just have to kowtow with the U.S. on some big issues where we will have to do a 180 degree if not a 360 degree (Crazy Ivan :) )

Let's step back and examine just what kind of scenarios we envisage wrt Chinese for which we think SSKs will not do the job but SSNs and SSGN/SSBNs are required.

1. Countering China's anti-access capability to use a USN buzzword. That is essentially
a) Their Sub-force which is still majority SSK, in fact they do not have any pure SSN boats IIRC, only SSGNs (Han class) and SSBNs.
b) Their 80 or so Houbei missile armed FACs for swarm-type attacks

For threat a) you need lots of SSKs and lots of MPAs + UAVs (SSKs have to surface sooner or later), and since even SSNs don't motor around at 30 knots when they are interdicting, especially around the littorals - the SSK is a very worthy adversary.

Threat b) - swarm attacks is whole thread in itself so I'll give it a pass for now especially since subs have little to contribute there, except in theory.

2. Escorting the Indian equivalent of a Carrier Strike Group in blue-water ops vs. a Chinese CSG.

Minimum 1 SSN is absolutely what is needed as a screen in a CSG - anti-sub and to preemptively take out the opposing carrier/major surface combatants. Worryingly, the IN scaled down its 2 Akula buy to 1, and one has never seen any open source confirmation that any SSNs are on order. In fact the whole IN doctrine on a Carrier Strike Group equivalent seems non-existent. Before people say we have been operating Carriers since 1960s, we have also had Armoured Divisions/Strike Corps for donkeys years but it took the mad genius of Gen. Sundarji to actually cast them in a proper warfighting context (scaring the hell out of all the babu-type top brass in his army)

3. Carrying out lone-ranger "Jimmy Dolittle" non-nuclear SSM strikes against Chinese bases as punitive retaliation against some kinetic action initiated by them.

Our Kilos can do so already. IAF with a Brahmos armed Su 30MKI squadron can give us similar capability. Would it be better to have SSNs with similar capability? Sure, but...

...maybe the answer lies here as to why the Navy can only do SSBNs and SSKs right now:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Defence-modernization-funds-cut-by-Rs-10000-crore-Army-operations-may-be-hit/articleshow/17848539.cms

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

SSGNs indeed!

Postby member_23455 » 02 Jan 2013 09:52

Also a small aside...for all practical purposes SSGNs are a USN construct when they had to decomm some SSBNs as part of SALT/START treaties and mostly for political reasons did not want to let go of the boats. So they converted them to Tomahawk-firers, which also fits in with the way they fight their wars (very expensive!). So torpedo tube launched Tomahawks - SSNs, and Missile tube launched Tomahawks- SSGN.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 Jan 2013 10:53

RajitO wrote:1. To think that NATO is redundant since collapse of SU ignores its increased membership since that event, ironically with new members coming from Warsaw Pact countries which has seen Putin and friends plan their own retribution e.g Georgia. NATO has been the U.S.'s default proxy from IFOR in the Balkans to the current ISAF in Afghanistan, and the facts is it has never been more active.


Its redundant as a military alliance which was the original objective. NATO members don't have a binding obligation to assist in expeditionary operations whether its in the Balkans or Afghanistan. And seeing as its members have an 'opt-out' option, NATO's utility remains confined to military standardization and efficiency in command and control. For example, Australian involvement in Afghanistan wasn't hampered by its non-membership in the NATO nor was Sweden's during the recent intervention in Libya.


2. France...just because "independent" France may take the lead on nuclear cooperation with India, like they did with the recent attacks on Libya, does not mean that there is not coordination and "choreography" at the highest levels with the U.S./NATO. The French's famed mercenary ways also have their limits e.g when they left the Argentinians in 1982 high and dry after cutting off supplies of Exocets.


Coordination and choreography is one thing but its a very different thing to accept an American veto over a potential $15 billion contract from a country that is on good terms with both the US and France.


3. The fact that NATO countries cannot and will not provide the fig leaf proxy to the U.S. in its impending showdown with the Chinese in East Asia is a huge opportunity for India. Ironically, neo-con think tanks like CNAS and experts like Robert Kaplan have taken the lead in backchanneling this very idea for the past couple of years with the Indian national security apparatus. BUT...

4. ...n-subs are a "redline" that no one in the Western hemisphere will cross for India just yet, especially as long as we have a self-defeating national security policy wrt China with uncomfortable echoes of Nehruvian times, which makes the U.S. see us a very different ally as compared to Israel and Japan.


Nuclear submarines may have been a red-line during the Cold War or the years of disarmament that succeeded it. Not any more.

Firstly, while India may not be willing to involve itself in overt military brinkmanship, its rise is certainly appreciated given that the US will be eclipsed as the region's foremost military power within 15 years.

And secondly, with the Akula-2 already sailing under an Indian flag, the 'red-line' as it were has already been breached. The UK and France could keep their boats off the market but they'll end up assisting the Russians. And their political leadership is aware that their local media will measure that decision by the number of jobs forfeited.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 02 Jan 2013 11:41

Philip wrote:The problems that the Astute class is experiencing right now makes it amusing to suggest acquiring the same,that is if the RN/UK will give us the tech for the same.No chance that either the US or UK will ever give us their most secret UW tech.This is a pipe dream! The US is unwilling to give Britain its closest ally JSF tech,forget about India getting cutting edge sub-tech!


The Russian wouldn't hand over tech either. Then again we're talking about acquiring submarines not the decades worth of technology invested in it. At best, local involvement would remain confined to hull construction and systems integration.

If one has read the IN's requirements,a conventional sub armed with Brahmos is required.Hence the recent UW launch.


Leaves our carriers without an undersea complement and without an ideal platform for reconnaissance/intelligence gathering operations in the South China Sea or offensive action against a surface fleet or SSN/SSBNs.

Ideally,it should switch from building Scorpenes,etc.,to SSGNs,so that SSBNs can be built at Vizag while it builds SSGNs at Bombay-with L&T's input as well in building sub components, as primary task.This will be the fastest way in which we can build at home both SSGNs and SSBNs and have at least 1/3 of the sub fleet (36 subs) nuclear powered.


SSBNs remain a tool for nuclear deterrence rather than warfighting and SSGNs as RajitO rightly pointed out are merely converted SSBNs; we neither afford SSGNs (within reasonable limits) nor their payload (the Ohio class can carry over 150 Tomahawks).

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 02 Jan 2013 12:34

Viv S wrote:And secondly, with the Akula-2 already sailing under an Indian flag, the 'red-line' as it were has already been breached. The UK and France could keep their boats off the market but they'll end up assisting the Russians. And their political leadership is aware that their local media will measure that decision by the number of jobs forfeited.


I see you are in a really happy place...maybe it's the New Year :wink:

Let me try this another way...US- NASA and others, used to compete with ESA/Arianespace to the levels of Boeing vs. Airbus hostility. ESA/Arianespace used to compete for our business with the Russians. We used to give everyone orders.

Yet when it came to Cryogenic Engines, how many years has it been since the Russian gave us so many and the tech, thus crossing the ICBM "red line" - have the Europeans or US jumped in?

Even something like the INS Jalashwa has come to us with end-user inspections. Can you imagine what will happen with a n-sub?

When the jobs argument and MIC lobbying could not save the U.S., UK and France from slashing their own forces - in what world will they do this for purely economic reasons for the Indians? There has to be a larger quid pro quo for that equation to change.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby mody » 02 Jan 2013 12:50

The whole P75I program should be scrapped. The very idea of buying 6 subs each from two different sources, with full ToT and then designing and building our own 12 subs, by mixing the best features of the two designs, is never going to fly.

We bought the U-209 with full ToT and built two of them. We are now building 6 scorpenes with full ToT and we have also built the arihant and building 2 more similar subs.
What more technology transfers do we need.
Its time to see how much we have absorbed upto now.
I would rather do the following improve and increase our sub fleet:

1). Sign a contract for 3 more scropenes with AIP, with hopefully atleast a 20% lower cost then the first 6.
2). Sanction the construction of 4 SSN/SSGN based on the arihant design. The armament would be 12 Brahmos in VLS tubes, instead of the K-15 VLS tubes and atleast 16 nirbhay missiles to be launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes. Plus 18 Varunastra torpedo and mines.
3). Start designing a new SSK sub, based on experience gained from the U-209 and scorpene programs. Build 6 of these from 2020 onwards.
4). If required, buy 3 Kilo 636/upgraded with Club missiles, USHUS or further upgraded Indian sonar, Indian batteries and other Indian equipment that has been used in the EKM upgrade program. These would help fill in the nos. and help patrol the littoral waters.
5). Lease 1 more Akula II SSN from the russians if possible.
6). From 2020-2025 start design and building of new follow on SSBN and SSGN design to the Arihant design.

By 2020 the sub fleet would be:
8 Upgraded Kilos (2 retired)
2 Type U-209 (2 retired)
6 Scorpenes
3 Type 636 Kilos (if order placed in the next 1-2 years)
1+1 Chakra
1+1+1 Arihant Class

By 2026 the Sub fleet would be:
4 Upgraded Kilo (Type EKM) (to be replaced by new SSK design subs, as they enter service)
9 Scorpenes
3 Type 636 Kilo
2 New SSK design subs
1+1 Chakra (Lease of the 1st one converted to buy)
3 Arihant Class
3 maybe 4 Arihant based SSN (if built on 2 lines and construction starts by 2017-18)

By 2030
9 Scorpenes
3 Type 636 Kilo
6 New SSK design subs
1+1 Chakra (Lease of both converted to buy)
3 Arihant Class
4 Arihant based SSN
1 New SSBN (Follow on design from Arihant)
1 New SSN/SSGN (Follow on design from Arihant)

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 02 Jan 2013 19:54

Nice piece of article on Astute program with plenty of manufacturing pics

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/astute.htm

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Brando » 02 Jan 2013 20:27

RajitO wrote:Can you imagine what will happen with a n-sub?
.


Technically as per the India-US nuclear deal and the NSG waiver, any new reactors sold to India would have to be "safeguarded". While there is no specific mention of "military" reactors, it would be hard to claim an exemption for them without creating a firestorm internationally and the Paki's demanding similar "treatment" from the world.

IMHO, India should "do whatever it takes" towards building a homegrown reliable, safe and efficient nuclear propulsion program. Once we get past the "N-word", the other sundries like sensors, torpedoes, quieting technology can be negotiated over with much less fuss. Should India be able to build a 90-150 MW compact PWR, it would be literally worth its weight in gold, even at today's prices!

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 02 Jan 2013 21:38

Brando wrote:
RajitO wrote:Can you imagine what will happen with a n-sub?
.


Technically as per the India-US nuclear deal and the NSG waiver, any new reactors sold to India would have to be "safeguarded". While there is no specific mention of "military" reactors, it would be hard to claim an exemption for them without creating a firestorm internationally and the Paki's demanding similar "treatment" from the world.

IMHO, India should "do whatever it takes" towards building a homegrown reliable, safe and efficient nuclear propulsion program. Once we get past the "N-word", the other sundries like sensors, torpedoes, quieting technology can be negotiated over with much less fuss. Should India be able to build a 90-150 MW compact PWR, it would be literally worth its weight in gold, even at today's prices!


To be frank that was a rhetorical question :)

More Brahmos/LR-SAM type "joint" ventures in critical technology areas are the way to go IMO since we do not seem to have the Chinese ability or money to get hundreds of Russian weapon geeks to work for us 24x7.

On that note, any lurkers on Sinodefence here who have an update on what happened to China's plans for Tu22s, for which they reportedly bought the entire production line and tooling? Were calling it the Hong-10 last time I checked.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 03 Jan 2013 01:07


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Jan 2013 08:50

The IAF have no strategic bombers at all.The Flankers,apart from load require refuelling over hostile airspace to reach the length and breadth of China,esp. its Pacific water ports like Shanghai,etc. Either they also acquire Backfires or equiv.in the future.

The latest US carriers being planned will last about 100 years (!)-more of their carrier plans in depth later.However ,the cost of these super carriers is $12/12 Billion.By 2020 hopefully,we will have 3 carriers in service.The Gorky/VIK,IAC-1 and the sunset of the Viraat,with its replacement around the corner.We may by then also have 1-2 amphibious vessels of the Mistral/Juan Carlos class in service.

3 Akulas are needed so that one boat can be at sea always.Either accompanying a carrier task force or on offensive patrol in an advanced posture.Now that an RFP for the &%I subs is around the corner,we will have to wait and see "what gives"! In the meantime vefore a decision is taken on this a few years from now,given our rate of decision making,the upgrade of all subs in the inventory should be also taken up as a priority.

As mentioned before,MDL should start planning to build nuclear boats after the Scorpenes,so that we have at least one SSGN which can protect an SSBN if need be in a crisis as well.While the SSBNs give us our UW strategic leg of the triad,the SSGNs give us considerable offensive capability.Remember how just one SSN the Conqueror kept the Argie fleet at home after sinking the Belgrano.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 03 Jan 2013 10:01

from POV of striking a naval or land target that is 3000-4000km away what is better

[a0] high flying, sustained supersonic, stealthy , very long range bomber with supersonic missiles

[a1] high flying, VLO, slow, long range bomber with supersonic / stealthy missiles

[a] a high flying non-stealthy sustained supersonic bomber like Blackjack that can release supersonic ASM / subsonic LACM which will fly low, try to evade radar and carry around 200kg charge. note the blackjacks can easily be picked up by long range radar if surveilling that airspace.

[b] a medium alt, slow flying bomb truck of the H6/Bear/P8I mould that releases
[b1] medium range missiles
[b2] very long range missiles of the 1000km mould

[c] large fighter supported by refuelers - su30 + midas/a330

---
imho
[a0] is unobtainium unless someone decides to make a bomber out of the semi mythical "aurora"

[a1] only the B2 falls in this category and perhaps someday PAKDA. not in our capability and not on sale.

[a] making a blackjack/B1b is well beyond our current ability and neither is it on sale. it is flexible due to being fast, very long range and equally at home against land or naval targets.

[b] this is actually in our capability if we fund it, mating the rotary bomb bay of blackjack/backfire into a tupolev or ilyushin passenger airframe
[b1] with medium range supersonic missiles attack naval or easy targets but vulnerable to being caught by interceptors
[b2] with long range missiles attack land targets. not feasible with moving naval targets.

[c] this is where we aspire to once brahmos-A and nirbhay ALCM comes.

to me it seems we are not even on bottom rung yet until brahmos-A is IOC.
Cheen via the H-6 is at the next rung up and they are aspiring to climb another rung if seriously make the backfire.
unlike us, they already have a range of missiles for this.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 03 Jan 2013 13:03

Philip wrote:The latest US carriers being planned will last about 100 years (!)-more of their carrier plans in depth later.However ,the cost of these super carriers is $12/12 Billion.


The cost of one carrier is $12 billion. Add to that the cost of the Carrier Air Wing. Add to that the cost of the Carrier Strike Group Components. Add to that the cost of fuel. Add to that the cost of the manpower of 4-5,000 trained personnel. This is what the IT guys call TCO - Total Cost of Ownership.

But IMO all this is worth it if employed in a well thought out strategic doctrine. The trouble with our chasing of this holy grail of the 3-carrier navy is that it is not accompanied by any strategic big picture on what exactly we plan to do with them, and to whom?

While comparisons are always flawed it is much simpler on the SSBN side as there we are playing catch-up with the PLAN and SSBN doctrine is pretty much standard for all navies.

Philip wrote:Remember how just one SSN the Conqueror kept the Argie fleet at home after sinking the Belgrano.

...and to extend that argument, the limitations of Argie carrier doctrine was exposed when they could not even get their carrier the Veinticinco de Mayo into the fight.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests