Indian Naval Discussion

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 23 Jul 2013 21:47

NRao wrote:
John wrote:Back when the deal was signed it was puzzling why MOD didn't decide to procure at least 2 Scorpene built abroad, have 1 assembled here and rest built here. Especially knowing all the problem DCN had earlier with Agosta90b.


This animal has no head !!!!

No planners, no project managers, it seems.

A MS Project would help them. Dates and dependencies.


The managers and Babus will install MS project themselves on the machines. The Microsoft Americans can give knowledge and technology transfer. Of course there could be delays as it is a complex process and it is a first time for them in installing such complex software.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 23 Jul 2013 23:08

Having a carrier wing is indispensable. You can't build up one overnight or even "overdecade" when one fine day you realize you do need to dominate SLOCs. Just because it can't be used as easily close to the Chinese mainland, it doesn't automatically mean you can't use it elsewhere. Having a strong naval presence isn't necessary ONLY if you're an expansionist power. In fact it is important to have one, exactly because you're not one. Two past predominant naval powers have shown, being able to dominate the oceans is an important capability. All of the U Boats the germans threw at the British and the Americans helped them in no way.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Jul 2013 23:31

Philip. What is really wrong with the shipyards? They all have retired IN officers running the yards and still lots of non-performance. Looks like schedules get revised again and again.

Parkinson's third law : Delay is the worst form of denial


“We have set a new target of September 2016 for delivery of the first Scorpene,” confirmed Rear Admiral (retd.) Rahul Kumar Shrawat, Chairman and Managing Director of Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) during an interaction with The Hindu in Kozhikode recently. Rear Admiral Shrawat says orders for the third and final batch of 178 high-value items — outfitting equipment that gained an unsavoury reputation as MDL-Procured Material (MPM) after the yard’s cumbersome and hazy procurement procedures held up the project for over two years — was placed on DCNS, the original manufacturer of the Scorpenes, in November last year.

The orders were placed on a single contractor to save the yard from the burden of having to deal with a large number of foreign vendors. The process inter alia ensured transparency and ease of procurement, Rear Admiral Shrawat said explaining the delay.

The Navy, however, is livid over the yard’s persistent disregard for deadlines. Top Navy officials rue that by the time the Scorpenes are commissioned, they would be obsolete. The first three Scorpenes will not even have air independent propulsion (AIP), a technology that enhances underwater endurance of submarines several times over, they point out. Without AIP, submarines are forced to surface once in a few days to recharge their batteries, a process when they are most susceptible to detection.

The contract for construction of the Scorpenes was inked in 2005, with the first originally slated for delivery in 2012. MDL’s long-drawn procurement processes and sluggishness in technology absorption gave the projects hiccups at the start itself. Meanwhile, the project cost grew exponentially from the original Rs.18,798 crore to Rs. 23,562 crore in 2010 with a renewed timeline.

Another roadblock

DCNS’ takeover of Armaris, the company with which the contract was signed, contributed to the complexities in sourcing of stipulated equipment. The project faced another roadblock with the yard failing to renew its technology assistance contract with the Spanish Navantia, co-developer of the Scorpenes, early this year.

While the country head of DCNS, in an interview with The Hindu in April, gave an assurance of “technical assistance [to the project] beyond contractual obligations,” it is believed that any further hold-up would result in the company making a plea for extra fee.


What they need is business process makeover.

So from 2012 it slipped 2016. And IN knew all along that the first three ships will not have API so why the gripe now? Or does that unnamed person think he would have gotten AIP for them three boats?


And about cost growth how much of it was due to currency exchange rates growth in those 5 years?

titash
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 24 Jul 2013 01:55

Image

how does one upload an image from one's desktop?

titash
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 24 Jul 2013 02:27

KrishnaK wrote:Having a carrier wing is indispensable. You can't build up one overnight or even "overdecade" when one fine day you realize you do need to dominate SLOCs. Just because it can't be used as easily close to the Chinese mainland, it doesn't automatically mean you can't use it elsewhere. Having a strong naval presence isn't necessary ONLY if you're an expansionist power. In fact it is important to have one, exactly because you're not one. Two past predominant naval powers have shown, being able to dominate the oceans is an important capability. All of the U Boats the germans threw at the British and the Americans helped them in no way.


Sirjee, sea control, sea denial, fleet-in-being, etc. are the strategies that are chosen by a country's leadership based on their immediate strategic needs and future desires. Grandeur comes after that.

The UK during its heyday felt that Brittannia should rule the waves, and did so with 30+ dreadnoughts in WWI, 15+ battleships and 10 odd carriers in WWII, but the royal navy has been in steep decline ever since. Why is that? It's because their strategic and economic interests no longer require a large navy

As we are a net importer of energy, the IN's immediate strategic need is to secure our energy routes. As an emerging economy with a large young population, our future desires are to avoid economic disruption, and find more ways to employ people gainfully. Having a strong naval presence helps to the extent that we can provide distant cover to our merchant shipping from the Persian gulf to the Malacca straits. This strong naval presence requires nuclear subs, carriers, and long range strike aircraft.

nuclear subs - no argument there; we need them, and need them fast, before the PLAN expands to it's 6 carrier fleet

carriers - no arguments here either; we need many of them. The discussion is whether India's strategy needs more 40k ton STOBAR carriers today or can we wait for 60k ton CATOBAR carriers tomorrow?


BTW, the U-Boat force enjoyed quite a few successful periods, namely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Happy_Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time

What undermined them was improvements in allied sensors, weapons, code-breaking and American industrial strength. But what really hurt was that U-Boats had to surface periodically. The war ended before Donitz could solve that problem and get these boats into the water in large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_submarine

The nuclear submarine took this concept even further - now you have a high speed stealthy platform whose endurance is virtually unlimited. This is by no means the end-all; there will be effective countermeasures against it. But what it does, is to force the enemy to expend immense material and industrial resources to counter it

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2013 03:00

All of the U Boats the germans threw at the British and the Americans helped them in no way.


IF the U-Boats had the bases that China has planned for, then the story could have been drastically different.

I think China has played her rather well so far. But she faces a strange problem. The stronger she gets in the IOR, the more nations outside the IOR take notice and feel threatened. This is very evident in the turn of events WRT both Japan and Australia, both of which now would like to hook up with India (and NOT the other way around as one member has stated). Especially Japan.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 24 Jul 2013 03:25

NRao wrote:But she faces a strange problem. The stronger she gets in the IOR, the more nations outside the IOR take notice and feel threatened. This is very evident in the turn of events WRT both Japan and Australia, both of which now would like to hook up with India (and NOT the other way around as one member has stated). Especially Japan.

That will always be the fundamental problem with a closed, opaque society. Especially one that's growing at an alarming rate. I have some problem believing China will be able to muster a lot more allies than the powers pitted against her.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 24 Jul 2013 03:28

NRao wrote:
All of the U Boats the germans threw at the British and the Americans helped them in no way.


IF the U-Boats had the bases that China has planned for, then the story could have been drastically different.

I think China has played her rather well so far. But she faces a strange problem. The stronger she gets in the IOR, the more nations outside the IOR take notice and feel threatened. This is very evident in the turn of events WRT both Japan and Australia, both of which now would like to hook up with India (and NOT the other way around as one member has stated). Especially Japan.


Although, having U-Boat bases in a foreign land is no use unless you have local air superiority and/or sea control. The Kriegsmarine would have lost all its bases (if any) in the Atlantic, to amphibious operations and/or strategic bombing.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 24 Jul 2013 08:50

raj-ji wrote:
See your point. But the contradiction only comes with trying to project power in certain neighborhoods. You see this with the US, and their formidable carrier groups as well. They can take them anywhere in the world. But you don't see them taking their carriers too close to Russia & China. These countries can ward off carrier groups in many different ways..............

...........If the Panda tries to park a carrier close to us, it won't take much to rattle their cages to the point they leave. MKIs flying low level from multiple directions will make sure their carriers will be very very busy. Not to mention our ships and subs hovering around. They would be sitting ducks. IMO the Pandas are more likely to use their carriers around Vietnam, the Phillipines and other smaller countries to intimidate them. Won't be the same result in the Indian Ocean. They won't even be able to use them against Japan or Taiwan.


How's this for close to China :)

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/418/199596_taiwan_strait_confrontation.html
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130529000133&cid=1101

It would be very strange for the Chinese to invest billions in an aircraft carrier program, and then not use it when they need it most - against a Japan, Taiwan, or India, or U.S. And rattling cages/sabre rattling is precisely what you do with a carrier and you decide whether a 25-30k carrier or a 60-65k one does that better.

Most of the statements on this thread about the limited use of carriers/inexpensive carriers are very similar to the line of thinking that used to exist wrt Sachin Tendulkar's batting position in bowler friendly conditions...protect your most valuable asset, push him down the order etc., and usually things were so messed up by the time he came in to bat that it did not matter anyway.

We discarded that defensive approach for good, same philosophy required if we are going to be in the big carrier business.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Jul 2013 11:37

Ramanna,the same thought came to me.However,I think that apart from the top execs,the rest of the establishment is firmly under babu control.note the point about MDLs laborious procurement protocol,etc.,the major reason for delay on the Scorpene project.Secondly,our DPSUs want the whole "buffet" without being able to finish the food on their plates.The other unmentioned point that the services moan about is that there are not enough babus who understand technical matters,especially highly advanced defence tech.Pushing any policy/acquisition through this minefield results in delays,cost overruns ,etc.

A recent article on the PLAN emphasised the attention that the PLAN is giving to logistic support of its sub fleet in ops far beyond Chinese shores.It is very clear that the PLAN is going to concentrate mainly on its sub fleet in the coming decades,carrier construction notwithstanding.Until the PLAN masters the art of carrier aviation,the carriers will be used in safe waters nearer home.The PLAN has been studying how to resupply subs which have expended their torpedoes,saying that without weapons they are4 useless (true!).One US sub-tender can resupply upto 10 subs.What the PLAN seems to be doing is quietly establishing support facilities in various IOR littoral nations like Sri Lanka,Burma,Maldives,Gwadar,etc.,where -especially at Gwadar,large stocks of spares and weaponry can be stockpiled and supplied to its subs by tenders at sea.If the Ghazi could venture as far as Vizag in '71 in an attempt to attack the Vikrant ,more modern PLAN subs could easily conduct IOR patrols being resupplied by tenders operating out of Gwadar,which would also provide most importantly repair facilities as the same subs are also being supplied to Pak.

Read the foll. report about then new class of sSSBN that the PLAN will field next year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... submarine/

The Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center earlier this month published a report on missile threats that identified the JL-2 a weapon that “will, for the first time, allow Chinese SSBNs to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast.” SSBN is a military acronym for nuclear missile submarine.

The Pentagon’s most recent annual report on China’s military stated that Beijing’s Navy has placed a high priority on building up submarine forces.

In addition to the three Type 094s currently deployed, China will add at least two more of the submarines before deploying a new generation missile submarine dubbed the Type 096, the report stated. It was the first time the Pentagon has revealed the existence of the follow-on strategic missile submarine.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2ZwSqnu00


Meanwhile DARPA is also developing a new advanced mother sub capable of operating UCAVs and UUVs.
http://gizmodo.com/darpa-is-building-a- ... -886014691

DARPA Is Building a Submarine Mothership to Launch Drones From the Sea

Drones are nuts. After all, they're robotic war machines that kill on command. But the mad scientists at DARPA are working on something that's even more nuts: a submarine that can carry an assortment of drones around the sea and launch them into the air. That's nuts.

This drone mothership—that's DARPA's word not ours—is a work in progress. The agency just released a bundle of new details about what they're building, and it sure sounds like quite the machine. The so-called Hydra program will build a submarine that can carry unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) covertly into battle zones. Once there, the real magic begins. DARPA explains the plan in a press release:

The air vehicle payload that will be ejected from the mothership, float to the surface, launch, fly a minimum range, and conduct several different types of missions.

Undersea payloads will launch, dock, and recharge from the mothership and collect intelligence information. After their missions they will download information to the mothership, which will communicate it to command authorities.

Sounds kind of like a James Bond movie, doesn't it? Well that's DARPA's specialty. This is the agency that brought us everything from a battery-powered human exoskeleton to the robotic cheetah that can run faster than Usain Bolt. And who could forget Atlas, the humanoid, DARPA-funded robot without a head that can stand on one leg?

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby raj-ji » 25 Jul 2013 21:58

RajitO wrote:
raj-ji wrote:
See your point. But the contradiction only comes with trying to project power in certain neighborhoods. You see this with the US, and their formidable carrier groups as well. They can take them anywhere in the world. But you don't see them taking their carriers too close to Russia & China. These countries can ward off carrier groups in many different ways..............

...........If the Panda tries to park a carrier close to us, it won't take much to rattle their cages to the point they leave. MKIs flying low level from multiple directions will make sure their carriers will be very very busy. Not to mention our ships and subs hovering around. They would be sitting ducks. IMO the Pandas are more likely to use their carriers around Vietnam, the Phillipines and other smaller countries to intimidate them. Won't be the same result in the Indian Ocean. They won't even be able to use them against Japan or Taiwan.


How's this for close to China :)

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/418/199596_taiwan_strait_confrontation.html
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130529000133&cid=1101

It would be very strange for the Chinese to invest billions in an aircraft carrier program, and then not use it when they need it most - against a Japan, Taiwan, or India, or U.S. And rattling cages/sabre rattling is precisely what you do with a carrier and you decide whether a 25-30k carrier or a 60-65k one does that better.

Most of the statements on this thread about the limited use of carriers/inexpensive carriers are very similar to the line of thinking that used to exist wrt Sachin Tendulkar's batting position in bowler friendly conditions...protect your most valuable asset, push him down the order etc., and usually things were so messed up by the time he came in to bat that it did not matter anyway.

We discarded that defensive approach for good, same philosophy required if we are going to be in the big carrier business.


The Panda can invest billions in carriers but if they go toe-to-toe with the US, if they put their carrier against a US carrier group, game over for the Panda. Billions doesn't match decades and a very very long head start the US has over the Pandas in carrier operations, numbers and tactics. Given this, it would be foolish of them to put their carriers in use in any conflict against Japan, Taiwan or Phillipines. By doing that they would be inviting the US to do the same, and again carrier group to carrier group the Panda will loose against the US. To use your analogy, that would be like sending Tendulkar against the best bowlers in the world without a helmet, gloves, pads and holding a tiny plastic cricket bat.

The Panda's carrier plans have raised a few eyebrows in the US. Their so called carrier killer missiles have raised more. How much would this missile cost vs a CATOBAR carrier? So you get much more bang for your buck.

No one is debating the value of a carrier. The argument is over whether we need to go into the CATOBAR carrier business or not. Argument is that more smaller carriers could be better. Should serve our needs well.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 25 Jul 2013 22:58

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is a nation that went with the small carrier strategy...currently their proudest accomplishments revolve around a royal offspring. Structure reveals strategy. If ours is to be a 2nd rate ancillary power, so be it. :)

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 25 Jul 2013 23:57

The whole point of having a carrier fleet - even in the role of fleet AD would be to operate beyond the range of land based aviation isn't it ? At that point, the size of the individual carriers + their associated component merely reflects the ambition to operate farther from own shores.

If having a carrier killer missile makes a carrier moot, does having an airbase killer missile, make an airbase moot ?

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby raj-ji » 26 Jul 2013 01:32

RajitO wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is a nation that went with the small carrier strategy...currently their proudest accomplishments revolve around a royal offspring. Structure reveals strategy. If ours is to be a 2nd rate ancillary power, so be it. :)


That brings up a very good question. What is the strategy for India. Expansionist, or protecting one's backyard. The answer to that question will determine the structures we need.

As for the small island with a much talked about royal family. Has there been one incident in all these years where they needed a big carrier? The only I can think of is the Falklands, and their small carriers did the job just fine.

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby raj-ji » 26 Jul 2013 02:01

KrishnaK wrote:The whole point of having a carrier fleet - even in the role of fleet AD would be to operate beyond the range of land based aviation isn't it ? At that point, the size of the individual carriers + their associated component merely reflects the ambition to operate farther from own shores.

If having a carrier killer missile makes a carrier moot, does having an airbase killer missile, make an airbase moot ?


Does a STOBAR have a lower range than a CATOBAR? If it does then I get your point. Otherwise a STOBAR is perfectly capable of operating farther from our shores. If the goal is to make n powered STOBARs, again there would be very little argument against that.

The carrier killer missile was to make a point about effectiveness. A much cheaper missile could make a carrier, even a CATOBAR, less effective. So going for the biggest, most expensive CATOBAR, may not add more value than a less expensive STOBAR.

Again the argument is STOBAR vs CATOBAR. We have a locally made STOBAR in the works. Arguement is too build more of these. The argument against a CATOBAR is that there are many unknowns, it will take a very long time till this is finalized. And this CATOBAR concept, may restrict the induction of more STOBARs. IMO, the biggest argument against CATOBARs is the cost. The cost to build, and the cost to operate.

And while India has witnessed excellent economic growth over the past few years, chasing the Panda and their extravagant spending is not wise at all. Unrealistic defence spending played a big part in downfall of the USSR. And one can see the impacts of defence spending on the US state of affairs. And the countries with the biggest defence budgets don't always win the wars. USSR in Afghanistan and US in Vietnam. Given these points, the argument is India doesn't need the biggest and best of everything. IMO there is a fine balance that needs to be considered. The value added needs to be compared to the additional cost of a CATOBAR vs. a STOBAR.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Jul 2013 02:10

Philip, The Imperial Japanese Navy also had plans for subs that could launch planes.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 26 Jul 2013 08:42

raj-ji wrote:
RajitO wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is a nation that went with the small carrier strategy...currently their proudest accomplishments revolve around a royal offspring. Structure reveals strategy. If ours is to be a 2nd rate ancillary power, so be it. :)


That brings up a very good question. What is the strategy for India. Expansionist, or protecting one's backyard. The answer to that question will determine the structures we need.

As for the small island with a much talked about royal family. Has there been one incident in all these years where they needed a big carrier? The only I can think of is the Falklands, and their small carriers did the job just fine.


If we have Indian companies drilling for oil/gas in the South China Sea, we have already expanded beyond our backyard. Countries that invest in SSBNs, ICBMs, GSLVs, revamp airfields in Central Asia, and have energy agreements with countries as diverse as the US and Iran usually signal their intent pretty early and pretty well! Also, there is a contradiction I pointed to earlier even in the argument of protecting your own backyard but also expecting our forces to practice "offense is the best defense".

Falkands was a war fought against a limited and constrained enemy. Are we suggesting China is Argentina? And what is the status of -forget the carriers - but of the RN now?

raj-ji wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:The whole point of having a carrier fleet - even in the role of fleet AD would be to operate beyond the range of land based aviation isn't it ? At that point, the size of the individual carriers + their associated component merely reflects the ambition to operate farther from own shores.

If having a carrier killer missile makes a carrier moot, does having an airbase killer missile, make an airbase moot ?


Does a STOBAR have a lower range than a CATOBAR? If it does then I get your point. Otherwise a STOBAR is perfectly capable of operating farther from our shores. If the goal is to make n powered STOBARs, again there would be very little argument against that.

The carrier killer missile was to make a point about effectiveness. A much cheaper missile could make a carrier, even a CATOBAR, less effective. So going for the biggest, most expensive CATOBAR, may not add more value than a less expensive STOBAR.

Again the argument is STOBAR vs CATOBAR. We have a locally made STOBAR in the works. Arguement is too build more of these. The argument against a CATOBAR is that there are many unknowns, it will take a very long time till this is finalized. And this CATOBAR concept, may restrict the induction of more STOBARs. IMO, the biggest argument against CATOBARs is the cost. The cost to build, and the cost to operate.

And while India has witnessed excellent economic growth over the past few years, chasing the Panda and their extravagant spending is not wise at all. Unrealistic defence spending played a big part in downfall of the USSR. And one can see the impacts of defence spending on the US state of affairs. And the countries with the biggest defence budgets don't always win the wars. USSR in Afghanistan and US in Vietnam. Given these points, the argument is India doesn't need the biggest and best of everything. IMO there is a fine balance that needs to be considered. The value added needs to be compared to the additional cost of a CATOBAR vs. a STOBAR.


Ok so let's take the cost argument, since that seems to be predominantly swaying your opinion on this matter. A carrier, for want of a better analogy is a swiss army knife, capable of doing many things. A DF-21D is a screwdriver/spanner/bottle opener. Does the swiss army knife cost more, sure, but it gives me equivalent value as well. Without wishing to derail the discussion there are also huge constraints in employing a "superweapon" whose launch and flight characteristics are the same as that of a N-carrying ballistic missile, especially when you have an ambiguous No First Use policy. Risking getting your entire country nuked for taking out one US CSG is a bad exchange IMHO. :)

Since you already know all this and have settled on STOBAR as a good cost compromise, let's look at the value you get in terms of combat power.

Dedicated f/w ASW - No
Dedicated AEW - No
Number of aircraft - 30-40
High Tempo ops - No

There is also the little matter of standing up a CSG worth a few billion $. If you take that as a fixed cost, Costing 101 would say scale is better for amortization...no? :)

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Jul 2013 09:41

the biggest advantage of a similar sized CATOBAR like CDG over a STOBAR like ADS1 is
- it can mount the heavy E2 jets to provide organic air control - the ka31 is nowhere in that league
- planes can fly up with heavier loads
the incremental cost of catobar is not much if khan is willing to sell. the QE2 had catobar plans initially though planning to use LM2500 turbines. the french PA2 plan is again gas turbine but catobar , so some means exist to produce the steam needed. or maybe try for EMALS - easier to produce and move around electricity.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 349
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 26 Jul 2013 23:03

Part 2 of Indian Naval Aviation article in Defense Media Network at http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... e-in-town/

Feel free to comment on this piece.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 27 Jul 2013 03:29

Philip wrote:Doom and gloom again. The sting of the Scorpene returns.


Well, it's actually making progress

GeorgeWelch wrote:
srin wrote:Is there something drastically wrong with Scorpene class (which can have AIP as add-on) that we need to go for further RFP and negotiation ?


That it might never arrive?

2005 - delivery in 2010 (5 years out)
2008 - delivery in 2012 (4 years out)
2011 - delivery in 2015 (4 years out)


2013 - delivery in 2016 (3 years out)

Of course at the rate of 5 real years to 1 projected year, the first sub will be delivered in 2028.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 27 Jul 2013 04:55

Good point George. Foreign vendors and corrupt Indians doing their best to make sure India can never project max offensive capability. Sab chalta hai. The some wise folks come out praising these vendors.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Jul 2013 17:12

Ramanna,yes.They actualy built them ,seized by the USN after the war.Pics have appeared in many mags.The new UAVs are launched from subs while underwater.Must look up the details posted over a year ago.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 27 Jul 2013 23:57

ramana wrote:Philip, The Imperial Japanese Navy also had plans for subs that could launch planes.


Do check out this wiki page and associated link Ramana - lots of good info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

They eventually hoped to attack the Panama Canal, San Francisco, and the woodlands of Oregon/Washington

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2543
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 28 Jul 2013 00:22

Vivek K wrote:Good point George. Foreign vendors and corrupt Indians doing their best to make sure India can never project max offensive capability. Sab chalta hai. The some wise folks come out praising these vendors.


Scorpene mess is not due to either when the shipyard is overloaded & antiquated (DCNS reports paint a picture of MDL lagging even behind Karachi in terms of ability to build a modern subarmine) ,not mention poor planning and no accountability what do you think is going to happen?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 28 Jul 2013 04:45

@RajitO ^^^: "Without wishing to derail the discussion there are also huge constraints in employing a "superweapon" whose launch and flight characteristics are the same as that of a N-carrying ballistic missile, especially when you have an ambiguous No First Use policy. Risking getting your entire country nuked for taking out one US CSG is a bad exchange IMHO. :)"

Too true. Also, the USN has Ohio class SSGNs (ex SSBNs) each with 154 Tomahawks that would respond by targeting the PRC mainland, in the event of any DF-21 attack on a CVN.

All the carrier killer achieves is 1. Keeps the CVNs a little further out so the F-35s can't get up close and personal and 2. Helps the long range strike bomber case (and funding).

Taking out a CVN with anything risks disproportionate US retaliation. The PRC knows this.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 28 Jul 2013 10:38

Image

Indian Navy to lease second Akula class submarine - Iribis

India and Russia are to shortly begin negotiations on the lease of a second nuclear attack submarine for the Indian Navy. The second boat likely to be the completed might be Iribis, an Akula that was only half constructed but abandoned as a result of paucity of funds.

The recently leased Akula class submarine - INS Chakra II, currently in service with the Navy’s eastern fleet has been on nearly non-stop patrol since its induction in April last year, and the Navy is reported to be very satisfied with its capabilities and performance.

Image

Tentatively christened INS Chakra III, the new submarine will be another advanced variant of the Akula class submarines that are capable of spending months under water. It is likely to be equipped with more lethal weaponry, including a vertically launched Brahmos missile system.

The submarine is to be reconstructed around the hull of the Iribis, a Russian Akula class submarine that was never completed as funds became scarce in the late nineties. Vladimir Dorofeev, head of the Malachite Design Bureau, said that the new submarine could also benefit from the design efforts that Russia had put in its latest class of Yasen nuclear-powered attack submarines


first time seen mention of VLS on 2nd Akula to be leased to India


source: http://activedefence.blogspot.in/2013/07/indian-navy-to-lease-second-akula-class.html

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 28 Jul 2013 20:28

INS Vikramaditya completes sea trial, aviation trails to start soon.

India’s second aircraft carrier, the 45,000-ton INS Vikramaditya — a retrofitted Russian carrier formerly named Admiral Gorshkov dating back to the 1980s — has successfully completed sea trial of achieving top speed of 32 knots, reports received from Russia said on Sunday.

It will now head for the White Sea where aviation trials will be conducted, informed sources said. INS Vikramaditya was supposed to be delivered five years ago but the Indian Navy is likely to receive it by this year end.

The extensively modernised Soviet-era carrier had set sail from the Sevmash shipyard for its first comprehensive sea trials in the summer of 2012. Russian MiG-29K fighter pilots had successfully completed take-offs and landings on its deck. The crew tested the aircraft carrier for its top speed but it simply stopped at 30 knots. It turned out that the boilers needed better insulation which had given way due to the extreme temperatures. It took several months to fix the glitch and send the vessel for sea trials again, sources said.

The aircraft carrier, which can easily hold about 30 fighters and helicopters, will now go for aviation trials. “Touch and go exercises by fighters and various other flight profiles will also being undertaken”, officials said.

The towering 45,300-tonne, 284 metre-long and 60 metre-tall INS Vikramaditya is fitted with modern communication systems, a protective coating, a telephone exchange, pumps, hygiene and galley equipment, lifts and many more facilities. Officials said that at any given time, there would be a 2000-strong staff on the completely remodelled aircraft carrier which has an extended flight deck and a full runway with a ski jump and arrestor wires. The vessel has new engines, new boilers, new generators, electrical machinery, communication systems and distillation plants.

As India’s requirements grew and the shipyard lagged behind in adhering to various schedules, the price of retrofit soared. It is estimated that the final cost would have gone up to around $ 2.3 billion. India had bought Admiral Gorshkov in 2005 for $ 947 million, renamed it Vikramaditya and given to the Russian shipyard for refitting it and turning it into a modern aircraft carrier.

India has taken upon itself to build two more aircraft carriers on its own. The first, the 40,000-ton Vikrant is likely to be ready by 2018 and the second, a 65,000-ton Vishal will be due sometime in 2025.

India’s main rival at sea, China, has already carried out flight tests from its carrier Liaoning, another reason why the Indian Navy would not like to suffer any more delay in getting INS Vikramaditya.


tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 29 Jul 2013 11:04

N-powered sub Arihant all set to sail out from Vizag

Indigenously built nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, is finally set to sail out from its base at Vishakhapatnam. The 6,000-tonne submarine, armed with nuclear missiles, is ready after years of efforts interspersed with sanctions in 1998 and impediments due to non-availability of cutting-edge technology.

“The nuclear reactor that will power the submarine can be formally declared ‘critical’ anytime now, while the nuclear-tipped missiles to be launched from underwater are in place,” sources said.

“Everything is ready,” a functionary said. “The wait is for the monsoon to subside before Arihant (slayer of enemies) dives into sea. A certain amount of calm is needed at sea when the vessel goes out the first time. The monsoon on the East Coast starts weakening by the middle of August, meaning the submarine will slither out in a couple of weeks from now,” he added.

“Around 95 per cent of harbour trials are over,” sources said. Once the submarine is out at sea, it will run on nuclear-powered 80MW pressurised water reactor (PWR). The PWR was developed by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) with assistance from a Russian designing team. It uses enriched uranium as fuel and light water as coolant and moderator.

Once at sea, the vessel will be gradually loaded with weapons and missiles. All parameters will be tested after each addition. “Each test will be conducted underwater for two months or more. This will include the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM)”, sources said.

New Delhi has done 10 underwater launches of SLBMs code named ‘B05’ using a submerged pontoon to mimic a submarine. It can travel 700 km, while the bigger variant, so far know as the ‘K-4’, can hit targets 3,500 km away and will finally be installed on Arihant and also the next two follow-on submarines of the same class.

The submarine will provide second-strike capability in case of a nuclear attack. It is the easiest to launch a nuclear strike from a submarine as it remains submerged, hence the enemy cannot detect it.

In December 2010, the then Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma had announced: “When Arihant goes to sea, it will be on a deterrent patrol (armed with nuclear-tipped missiles).” Being nuclear-powered, the submarine will not have to surface for two months to breath, like the conventional vessels have to.

India will join the US, the UK, France, and China by having such technology and prowess.

Arihant has cost Rs 15,000 crore. It has been jointly developed by the Navy, BARC and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at the Visakhapatnam naval dockyard. Russian designers assisted in building the vessel. Other companies involved in the development of the submarine are Tata Power and Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The project, earlier known as the advanced technology vessel (ATV), has been under development since 1998.

source : http://idrw.org/?p=24902

Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12506
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Jul 2013 22:01

Any chance we can have INS Vikram Aditya, Chakra II and Arihant operational by end of 2013. That would mean IN capabilities have increased dramatically within 1 calendar year.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 29 Jul 2013 22:31

If they can get INS Kolkata and INS Kamorta into service this year it would be icing on the cake.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 525
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 30 Jul 2013 01:49

Take a deep breath regarding anything with Barak 8

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... seph-Weiss

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Jul 2013 07:09

imo if the bay of bengal is projected to be our SSBN bastion, we need a small fleet of P28 ASW corvettes to secure the area and offload bigger multirole ships for other roles. P8s can also prowl around and help. a couple of LPH with big embarked ASW helis would complete the portfolio.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Jul 2013 07:40

India needs her own pearl necklace around every port that is pro china. Place underwater listening devices, plenty of them (bet Chicom will encourage these nations to cut them). Underwater sensors needs to be the next field of action.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 30 Jul 2013 09:27

Image

INS Aridhaman shaping up?

India’s first indigenously developed and designed nuclear powered submarine INS Arihant is all set to begin “sea-acceptance trials” (SATS) next month , which will at least last next six months before it is commissioned in to Indian Navy, which most likely to happen in first quarter of 2014.

According to sources close to idrw.org, India’s Second Nuclear submarine dubbed S2 is under construction in Vishakhapatnam and is shaping up for its launch most likely to happen around mid of 2014. Named INS Aridhaman it is second nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine being built by India and the second Arihant class submarine development under advanced technology vessel programme.

INS Aridhaman after its launch will take few years before it completes its harbour-acceptance trials (HATS) and later sea-acceptance trials (SATS) before it can be commissioned in Indian Navy. S3 which is third Arihant class submarine to be built will be under construction soon.

Development of INS Aridhaman was first made public accidently in 2011, when four workers working in dry docks were killed where INS Aridhaman was under construction in a mishap leading to media speculation that INS Arihant has suffered some damages and will face more delays due this mishap. Only to be later rebutted by Government agencies that INS Arihant or any other submarine did not suffer any damages, which lead to revealing of construction of second submarine where actual mishap took place.

Indian Navy has requirement of three nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine based on Arihant class submarines and six SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the long term. Arihant class submarines will be armed first with the 750-km K-15 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and later will be will K-4 SLBM with range of 3500 km.

According to Defence experts K-4 SLBM will be ready before INS Aridhaman is commissioned in to India Navy and test of K-4 mostly likely will take place by end of 2014. INS Arihant has four silos on its hump to carry either 12 K-15s or four K-4s.

source: http://idrw.org/?p=25068

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 30 Jul 2013 09:54

SNaik wrote:Take a deep breath regarding anything with Barak 8

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... seph-Weiss


Being vague isn't exactly communicative. If you have to say something, come out and say it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Jul 2013 22:28

Barak 8 though delayed,is apparently doing well,judging from this open report.The Israeli Navy intends to equip its missile corvettes with B-8 to counter Russian Yakhont (brother of B'Mos) missiles supplied to Syria.Some of these missiles were allegedly recently destroyed by the Israelis in an attack from the sea.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breakin ... 013/07/29/

Israeli Navy System to Counter Yakhont Russian Anti-Ship Missile
The Barak 8 medium-range missile is designed to intercept airborne threats, including anti-ship missiles.
By: JNS News Service
Published: July 29th, 2013

Israel’s Navy has begun installing a new defense system on its missile boats that would protect them from the feared Yakhont Russian anti-ship missile.

The Barak 8 medium-range missile is designed to intercept airborne threats, including enemy aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles. “History has never seen ships capable of controlling territory as well as Israel’s Navy using the Barak 8 missile,” according to a source familiar with the weapon.

The Barak 8 would provide Israeli naval craft with a defense against the Russian Yakhont missile, a potent anti-ship weapon that Israel sees a threat to its navy, especially if it falls into the hands of Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. A Russian shipment of the Yakhont missiles was allegedly destroyed in Syria by Israel a few weeks ago.

The navy has decided to install the Barak 8 systems on its Saar 5 missile boats for the time being. It is believed that the system will be operational on the boats within the coming months.


PS:Some interesting ,good news from Burma.

Dilemma over Myanmar navy
Sujan Dutta
Myanmar Navy chief Vice-Admiral Thura Thet Swe in New Delhi on Monday. (AFP)

New Delhi, July 29: Myanmar has sought Indian assistance to beef up its navy in a strategic development that is happy news for planners in New Delhi but the government is concerned it cannot do enough to help the country that often turns to China.

The chief of the Myanmar Navy, Vice-Admiral Thura Thet Swe, who is on a four-day visit to India, today met Indian Navy chief Admiral D.K. Joshi and “discussed various proposals to further strengthen the navy-to-navy cooperation in operations, training and material support and take the existing relationship to another plane and promote capacity building and capability enhancement”, an official statement said.

“Myanmar is one of our closest neighbours. We share a land border as well as a maritime border with them. On the navy-to-navy front we have had extremely cordial relations,” Admiral Joshi said, welcoming Admiral Thet Swe.

Myanmar has asked India for help to service four Islander maritime surveillance aircraft that New Delhi gifted in 2007. The British-origin Islander aircraft was gifted to the Myanmar junta despite objections from the UK. The Indian Navy was on the verge of phasing-out the vintage aircraft. But Myanmar’s small navy found them useful.

Myanmar has also asked India for offshore patrol vessels and fast attack craft made in Indian defence shipyards. But Indian shipyards are chock-full with orders from the navy.

This March, the Indian and Myanmar navies began co-ordinating patrolling along their maritime boundary. The Indian Navy, that closely watches the growth of the Chinese naval footprint in the Indian Ocean region, itself assesses that the opportunity afforded by Myanmar should be utilised.

Despite the distrust of the Myanmar junta for many years and in the face of western opposition, New Delhi had kept a working relationship going with the military establishment. In these years, China has made deep inroads in Myanmar, contributing not only to building roads and a pipeline, but also to training the Myanmarese military.

With Bangladesh headed for an uncertain election at the end of the year, Myanmar’s request for Indian military assistance marks a major initiative that is set to impact India’s eastern theatre and boundaries in the Northeast.

The Myanmar Navy chief, who met army chief General Bikram Singh, defence secretary R.K. Mathur and vice-chief of the air force Air Marshal Arup Raha, will be given a tour of the Kochi-headquartered Southern Naval Command over the next two days.

The Myanmar Navy has also requested India to increase the quota of sailors and officers in Indian military training academies.


http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130730/j ... ffyh39AbB0

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2543
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 31 Jul 2013 02:49

Bheeshma wrote:If they can get INS Kolkata and INS Kamorta into service this year it would be icing on the cake.


From what i understood Kolkata was to be commissioned without Barak 8 but during trials they found some issues' and that will delay commissioning till next year?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 31 Jul 2013 03:16

Construction of Triple-E class -world's largest container ship by Daewoo----just goes to show the benchmark of ship building


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21158
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 Jul 2013 06:16

R.Adm. Raja Menon (retd.) writing about other options instead of the 50,000 strong mountain strike corps,which will face huge problems in terrain related hurdles in its ops against China,instead offers an alternative-spending the money instead in beefing uo the IN which will then be able to completely dominate the PLAN in the IOR and beyond.With China's raw material logistic chain becoming longer and longer as it ventures further apart,protecting this "gravy train" will become a nightmare on the high seas without a navy double in size to what China already possesses.The Chinese strategy would be to use its large fleet of modern subs ,as it lacks carriers and the experience of operating them which will take it at least a decade to do so.Even supporting its subs far from home with sub-tenders,etc. would be a problem for the PLAN.

R.Adm.Menon says that 3 carriers and a fleet of nuclear subs would be able to deal with the Chinese threat on land.He also adds that the strike corps is heavily infantry oriented.During Kargil,Pak withdrew for two reasons.Firstly,they were slowly losing the heights to the concerted efforts of the IA and IAF,but were very low on fuel,just a few weeks reserves,supplies which the IN threatened to cut off by a potential naval blockade in the event of the conflict expanding which would've grounded the Paki army leading to an even greater ignominious defeat! The needs of the IN in facing the threat from China is as important as beefing up our capability in the High Himalayas.The dismal attention being given to our conventional sub fleet is illustrative of the topsy-turvy decision-making by the MOD.

The good news from Burma should be acted upon immediately.here is a magnificent opportunity to get Indian pvt. yards into building the small fast craft and OPVs that Burma requires,as out DPSUs are full of orders and are experiencing severe delays too.A couple of decades ago,a former CNS told me how the MOD sat on a similar offer from a strategic African nation to create an entire navy for it.The MOD/MEA did b*gger all and we lost the opportunity to have had pole position on the E.African coast.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests