Indian Naval Discussion

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 09 Aug 2013 05:40

India's First Indigenous Carrier Faces Delays, Cost Growth.

While India claims that its first home-built carrier, the Vikrant, will be fully operational by 2018, Indian Navy sources say that date is closer to 2020 since the ship is only about 30 percent complete.

On Aug. 12, India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-1) will be launched nearly four years behind schedule. The ship is being built by state-owned Cochin Shipyard Limited at Kochi in southern India.

The aircraft carrier will be floated out of dry dock, then redocked in order to mount the propulsion system. Work will then begin on the deck and the weapon systems before sea trials. And while Defence Ministry officials say those trials will begin by 2016, Indian Navy sources say it will not be before 2018-19.

“Launch merely means they will float the IAC-1 from the dry dock [to outfit the interior],, which includes laying of pipes, and after that it will be dry docked again for integration of propulsion systems,” an Indian Navy source said

Not only will Vikrant’s induction be delayed, but sources add that the total cost of the carrier will be more than US $5 billion, including the aircraft and weapons systems. When the project was approved in 2003, the ship was estimated to cost around $500 million. Sources said the construction of the carrier, minus the weapon systems and aircraft, will cost more than $2.2 billion.

Indian Navy spokesman Cmdr. P.V. Satish insisted that IAC-1 will be inducted in 2018.

“First and foremost, it needs to be understood that constructing an aircraft carrier is a very complex task. At the time of keel laying of the IAC in 2009, it was estimated that the ship would be delivered by 2014-15,” he said. “However, due to delays in arrival of some machinery from foreign sources, which are essential prior to the launch of the ship, the Phase I launch of the ship has been delayed by around three years. There have been certain other delays also in finalizing the detailed design aspects due to uniqueness of the systems. Things are now in place and we look forward to a targeted delivery by 2018.”

Indian Navy sources countered that at the time of the launch, only the hull and the outer structure will be completed, about 30 percent of the total work needed for the carrier.

After laying piping, the carrier will be redocked to mount the gear box, hydraulic systems, generator systems and propulsion system.

Work will then focus on the hangar deck for aircraft, berthing spaces for 1,400 sailors, boiler room and the flight deck.

Before sea trials, workers will install the Israeli-made Barak air defense system, multi-function radar system, A630 close-in weapon system and combat management system, the sources added.

An Indian Navy official said this ship will be able to stop attacks from enemy aircraft and will have anti-submarine defense systems. All systems on board will be integrated through a combat management system.

The Vikrant will be 262 meters long and be able to accommodate around 30 aircraft, including helicopters.

“IAC-1 features a STOBAR [short take-off but arrested recovery] configuration with a ski-jump. The deck is designed to enable aircraft such as the MiG-29 to operate from the carrier. It will deploy up to 20 fixed-wing aircraft, primarily the Mikoyan MiG-29K and the naval variant of indigenous Tejas Mark 2, besides carrying 10 Kamov Ka-31 helicopters,” the Indian Navy official said.

The Navy plans to have three aircraft carriers; a final decision is awaited on the IAC-2, which would be another homemade carrier but would displace more than 60,000 tons, 20,000 tons more than Vikrant. IAC-2 is still in the design stage but will have a catapult deck.

“IAC-2 is currently on the design board. Various feasibility options for the carrier are presently being pursued. Detailed study on the type and complement of aircraft and the ships’ propulsion options is being progressed to further narrow down design options,” Satish said.

Despite the delays and ballooning cost of IAC-1, defense planners, Indian Navy officials and analysts agree that India must build — not import — its carriers.

“Getting modern carriers in the open market is not easy. Our experience with Vikramaditya [Russian-made Admiral Gorshkov] is evidence,” said Probal Ghosh, senior fellow, Observer Research Foundation, adding that the Navy should now concentrate on IAC-2 and begin construction as soon as possible.

“Personally, I don’t think India should look toward procuring an aircraft carrier from abroad. Indigenous development with foreign collaboration, transfer of technology in certain areas where we may not have the expertise as yet would be far more prudent,” said Anil Jai Singh, retired Indian Navy commodore and vice president of the National Maritime Foundation.

Having three carriers allows one to be stationed on each of India’s coasts, while the third would undergo repairs or perform other duties such as training.

“The Navy has a clearly spelt-out capability plan which factors a balanced growth and includes a plan to have two carrier battle groups,” Satish said. “This will naturally entail having three carriers with requisite support ships to form a battle group. All the components are equally important.”

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Bade » 09 Aug 2013 06:30

The latest image of the carrier in the dock, with the constant whine about the 4-year delay due to the imported component. So what is new ?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 720713.cms

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 09 Aug 2013 07:12

^^I wonder when one is going to discuss the ballooning costs of employing and bribing news prostitutes and how their bulging waistlines (from eating all those 5-star dinners) are causing a health problem for the nation.

These articles by the news prostitutes are like a loud smelly fart at a birthday party, right when you are about to blow out the candles. They are ill-timed and malicious. They always accompany anything good happening in the country, particularly if it is an indigenous product. These reports and the news prostitutes that give birth to them should be treated with about as much respect as the above-mentioned farter.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 09 Aug 2013 08:42

Warship production in India is experiencing delays all down the line,in almost every yard.The hard truth is that our DPSU yards are woefully ancient and have been crying out for modernisation for a long time.MDL has little space for fitting out warships once launched and the huge investment made by L&T and Pipapav in their modern yards have gone abegging for want of orders from the MOD,because of DPSU greed.

Buillding a carrier for the first time is no joke.One must first acknowledge that.Even post-war japan is re-learning the art.Initially,the commissioning date was fixed for 2017,but almost every analyst rejected such an ambitious target given the track record of our yards and the convoluted procurement system in place.Despite many ex-IN officers heading some of the yards, babudom turns a programme into an obstacle race when foreign components have to be sought,which accounts for the major cost of almost every warship,from propulsion,sensors,weaponry and other key eqpt. like combat systems,etc.Even the special steel being acquired from abroad had delays and finally SAIL did the business-one good result of indigenisation.Still,there is no harm in the DPSU entities from giving the nation realistic timeframes which they can meet.The over-ambitious tall tales of developing indigenous weapon systems and key components by the DPSUs is legion.If one lists out the number of major projects delayed,virtually every project will be found to have badly slipped its arrival date.In the case of shipbuilding,the well-known delays and huge cost overruns of follow-on Delhi class DDGs,Shivalik stealth FFGs and the sting-in-the-tail Scorpene are scandalous.

What the MOD and DPSUs do not realise,or ignore,is that the armed forces then have to depend upon extending the life of tired old warships,subs,aircraft and helos-not to mention their sensors and weaponry,which becomes a huge expensive task when obsolescence and non-availability of original spares occurs.This has a drastic effect on the readiness and capability of the armed force in question.In the past the IN had the ignominy of a Petya class light frigate sink in an exercise in heavy weather because of its poor hull condition.Not too long ago,an aging Leander class frigate was involved in a collision with a merchantman in Bombay and sank after a fire broke out.

The IAF are still operating the MIG-21,50+ years after the type was acquired,and because of further delays in the LCA arriving,will soldier on for another decade upto and beyond 2020 according to to the DM! The venerable Viraat (ex-Hermes) of Falklands War fame,which recently celebrated its 50th B'day,was acquired second-hand after the RN pensioned her off.I remember an admiral in conversation with his former CNS,remark on how well the Brits had maintained the carrier,which he said would serve for at least two decades with the IN.The Viraat is now going to have to stand in until the new Vikrant arrives in 2020,some 20 years even beyond its second lifespan with the IN! Imagine the enormous effort,cost and time required to keep these venerable vessels fighting fit. One wonders how often our fatted ministers and their precious backsides get new official vehicles ,how often they get the interiors of their offiicial residences done up and how we,amongst the poorest nations of the world,where hundreds of millions face starvation,can afford the huge number of 12 VVIP AW-101s ( the subject of a major scam) which even pres.Obama found just 3 of the same too expensive for his use!

When the press highlights these glaring deficiencies ,the DPSU/babu lobby get to work on their usual pastime of "shooting the messenger".At all costs the gravy train of billions of $$$ in "indigenous" effort must be maintained.Today's papers have details of the CAG rapping a DPSU in another scam.

Nevertheless,thanks to great vision,being treated like Cinderella for decades,the IN has struggled despite all these difficulties and persevered,so that warship building indigenously-no matter what the foreign content is and acquired from diverse sources from both east and west,has somehow managed to integrate and package everything successfully,producing world class warships ,the envy of many developed navies too and have substantially furthered the goal of indigenisation ,the most achieved by any of the three services.If pvt. industry which has made huge investments is allowed to also compete for warship building,since the DPSUs are filled to the brim with orders that they are struggling to deliver on time,and allowed to also build carriers and amphib. warships, a quantum leap further in local production will happen thus avoiding imports altogether.

Aug 12th,no matter that these problems exist,will mark an historic red-letter day in the annals of the nation and its ancient reputation for shipbuilding.The Cochin yard-we congratulate all involved in this monumental effort, is emulating the great history of the art of shipbuilding in India,all along the Malabar Coast,The dhowmakers of N.Kerala,Kohlis of Bombay,Tamil Pandyan kingdoms of yore and others.Even Alexander is said to have got his boats built by Punjabi builders in 326 BC and the earliest evidence we have are from the Indo-Gangetic civilisation and the mighty dock at Lothal in Gujarat built 5000 yrs ago! So let us down a tot of India's finest local rum on Monday to celebrate the event and may the Vikrant II sail in IN colours for many decades to come safeguarding our nation and its seas and bringing great glory to her illustrious name!

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 09 Aug 2013 09:44

Aditya G wrote:Is it me or the Oto 76 turret looks different design?

It is using the new Stealth mount similar to what you have in RSS Formidable. Anyway no indication from those pics that it will have VLS for Klub.
Image

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rupak » 09 Aug 2013 09:54

Guys for the last time the P-28 was not designed to embark SSM. Ditto for the NOPV. Given their role, there is no need for SSM. This makes them cheaper to build and operate.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2013 11:36

hope the P28 atleast mounts the latest long range evolutions of the RBU anti-torpedo system and HWT & sonars of best quality. given their role they are most likely to come across enemy subs trying to worm inside our vital areas.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 09 Aug 2013 12:00

koti wrote:
Austin wrote:Vikramaditya , Interesting Angle

http://sdelanounas.ru/i/d/3/d3d3LnNldm1 ... E4NQ==.jpg


I've never seen a bigger bridge on an AC


I think the island design is shared with Kuznetsov ... probably explains the out-size.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2013 12:08

strange thing is even that gigantic island could not accomodate all the kit and hence the secondary post. some of the older US CVNs also had that extra mast for ATC / search radar added. most of it is a funnel shaft?

here you see on the uss JFK http://www.murdoconline.net/2008/jfk_inactive.jpg

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2013 12:17

Indeed the bridge looks quite beefy .....is that because its main engines uses steam boilers ? OR some other reasons.

Another view http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-c ... paring.jpg

Compare that with Kuz , I get the feeling relative to its size Kuz still have a less beefier Bridge when you compare it to Vikram.

http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss30 ... ov_095.jpg

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2013 12:21

the rear part of it probably a huge funnel shaft inside.
the tall step arrangement with huge height and one set of radar/weapon in each step is typical of russian designs that had a separate radar for each weapon system.....see Moskva pics http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship ... oskva1.jpg

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2013 12:34

I agree on the funnel part clearly seen in this model

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov9.jpg

As far as radar goes Vikram bridge just holds two of them MFR Top Plate and LR Radar of Air Search Podv ..... beyond that there is just a cylindrical thingy for Air Control.

There is ample of space on the bridge to fix new radars if required , I suspect when they fix Barak-1/AK-630 M they would need Elta Radar of these and in future if they add Barak-8 they would need the 4 Face AESA 2048 ......I dont think they would build another tower as there is no space , So likely they would Slap radars for Barak-1/8 on these bridge on the rear side.

The funnel is still deep inside and rear part of the bride does not have any thing as of now the front portion is sill occupied with radars. Likely has some kind of build for but not with as of now to accommodate future radars.

The old Gorshkov has similar arrangement for 4 faced radar

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov5.jpg

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 09 Aug 2013 15:35

Correct, the vacant space at the rear is designated for EL/M-2258 installation for MR-SAM.

Second mast is a feature of all Nimitz class AC:

Image

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 10 Aug 2013 05:36

Rupak wrote:Guys for the last time the P-28 was not designed to embark SSM. Ditto for the NOPV. Given their role, there is no need for SSM. This makes them cheaper to build and operate.

I noted that 6 years ago and people refused to believe it hopefully those pictures would put that topic to rest.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 10 Aug 2013 07:01

X Posted from the "INS Arihant News and Discussion - 2" thread.

arun wrote:
Pranay wrote:NEWS FLASH India's first N-sub launched: Nuclear reactor of INS Arihant goes critical.

...ticker on NDTV.



Times of India article on the Arihant’s reactor going critical:

Reactor of India's first indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant goes 'critical'

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Aug 2013 09:37

I am hoping they will release a few photos of it now.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23633
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 10 Aug 2013 13:52

Any bets on how soon the pakis will have access to the dong feng??


This Is How the Carriers Will Die

I’ve been saying for a long time that aircraft carriers are just history’s most expensive floating targets, and that they were doomed.

But now I can tell you exactly how they’re going to die. I’ve just read one of the most shocking stories in years. It comes from the US Naval Institute, not exactly an alarmist or anti-Navy source. And what it says is that the US carrier group is scrap metal.

The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.”

You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”

That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.

So it doesn’t matter one god damn whether the people in the operations room of a targeted carrier could track the Dong Feng 21 as it lobbed itself at them. They might do a real hall-of-fame job of tracking it as it goes up and comes down. But so what? Let me repeat the key sentence here: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Think back a ways. How old is the ballistic missile? Kind of a trick question; a siege mortar is a ballistic missile, just unguided. A trebuchet on an upslope outside a castle is a ballistic weapon. But serious long-range rocket-powered ballistic weapons go back at least to the V-2. A nuclear-armed V2 would have been a pretty solid way of wiping out a carrier group, and both components, the nuke and the ballistic missile, were available as long ago as 1945.

A lot has happened since then, like MIRVs, mobile launchers, massively redundant satellite guidance—but the thing to remember is that every single change has favored the attacker. Every single goddamn change.

You know that Garmin satnav you use to find the nearest Thai place when the in-laws are visiting? If you were the Navy brass, that should have scared you to death. The Mac on your kid’s bedroom desk should have scared you. Every time electronics got smaller, cheaper and more efficient, the carrier became more of a death trap. Every time stealth tech jumped another step, the carrier was more obviously a bad idea. Smaller, cooler-running engines: another bad sign for the carrier. Every single change in technology in the past half a century has had “Stop building carriers!” written all over it. And nobody in the navy brass paid any attention.

The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year: the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier. And that goes for the ones running the US surface fleet as much as it does for the GM or Chrysler honchos. Hell, they even look the same. Take that Wagoner ass who just got the boot from GM and put him in a tailored uniform and he could walk on as an admiral in any officer’s club from Guam to Diego Garcia. You have to stop thinking somebody up there is looking out for you.

Remember that one sentence, get it branded onto your arm: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” What does that tell you about the distinguished gentlemen with all the ribbons on their chest who’ve been standing up on carrier bridges looking like they know what they’re doing for the past 50 years? They’re either stupid or so sleazy they’re willing to make a career commanding ships they know, goddamn well know, are floating coffins for thousands of ranks and dozens of the most expensive goldplated airplanes in the history of the world. You call that patriotic? I’d hang them all.

That’s why it’s so sickening to read shit like the following:

“The purpose of the Navy,” Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, tells me, “is not to fight.” The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region. From Yokosuka, Guam, and Honolulu, the Navy is sending its ships on missions to locales as far away as Madagascar. On board the Blue Ridge, the vice admiral’s command ship anchored at Yokosuka, huge display screens allow officers to track the movements of any country’s military vessels cruising from the international date line in the east to the African coast in the west—the range of the Seventh Fleet’s zone of influence.

That’s the kind of story people are still writing. It’s so stupid, that first line, I won’t even bother with it: “The purpose of the Navy is not to fight.” No kidding. The Seventh Fleet covers the area included in that 2000 km range for the new Chinese anti-ship weapons, so I guess it’s a good thing they’re not there to fight.

Stories like this were all over the place in the last days of the British Empire. For some dumbass reason, these reporters love the Navy. They were waving flags and feeling good about things when the Repulse and the Prince of Wales steamed out with no air cover to oppose Japanese landings. Afterward, when both ships were lying on the sea floor, nobody wanted to talk about it much. What I mean to say here is, don’t be fooled by the happy talk. That’s the lesson from GM, Chrysler and the Navy: these people don’t know shit. And they don’t ****** care either. They’re going to ride the system and hope it lasts long enough to see them retire to a house by a golf course, get their daughters married and buy a nice plot in an upscale cemetery. They could give a damn what happens to the rest of us.

Page 1 2 3View All

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pragnya » 10 Aug 2013 15:48


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Aug 2013 17:28

Anti-ship BMs have a major problem,targeting,given their extended range and terminal guidance once within the target zone.There is no evidence from latest US info that they've succeeded with this.However,SM-3 RM-161 SAMs do have anti-B/missile capability,plus some anti-sat capability too at LEOs.

The ATR and Casa birds will be the front runners for the MMR ,cheaper than the other jets.The ATR already has considerable tech. support here .Interesting contest,a lot depends upon the specs. and whether the smaller turboprops (better at low and slow missions) can accomodate all the sensors and other eqpt. Perhaps it would be better for the IN to acquire more P-8s for LRMP and smaller cheaper turboprops for the MMR.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 10 Aug 2013 17:54

chetak wrote:Any bets on how soon the pakis will have access to the dong feng??


This Is How the Carriers Will Die



Well if this thread is to descend into troll-hell then Ok :)

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


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Aug 2013 20:48

DEW weapons are under development.The US has made great strides with a laser which can allegedly also shoot down ABMs .It is expected to make its arrival on board a warship before the decade is out.Moreover,the targeting for an anti-ship BM has yet to be perfected,requiring a series of dedicated maritime sats,terminal homing of the warhead,etc.A carrier is more likely to be sunk by saturated supersonic missile attacks like BMos/Yakhont and the larger cruise missiles carried by Russian Oscar class SSGNs.One to have been built for each US carrier! In the Chinese context,the invasion and "liberation" of Taiwan is the most important goal.Remember how the PRC lost enormous face when the US carrier task force steamed through the Taiwan Strait many moons ago,which prompted the PLAN to acquire Soviet Sovremenny DDGs armed with supersoinic Moskit missiles? Catch a US carrier task force doing the same these days!

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21177
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem » 12 Aug 2013 23:45

Naval Buildup in Asia’s Game of Thrones

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... f-thrones/

India recently passed a major milestone in the development of its blue-water navy: The country’s first nuclear-powered submarine successfully activated its reactor yesterday. As The Hindu reports, the sub—named the Arihant—is the first of four, all of which of the subs will carry K-15 missiles which can be launched from underwater and carry a nuclear warhead and hit targets up to 700 kilometers away.The Arihant makes India the second power in the region with nuclear submarines, joining China. It’s also the latest in a flurry of naval building throughout Asia: Japan recently launched its largest ship since WWII, China appears to be working on a second full-sized aircraft carrier and Australia and Japan are considering an agreement to share submarine technology of their own. India’s new nuclear submarine fleet has been under development for 25 years and seems to be aimed at least as much towards providing second-strike deterrence towards Pakistan as towards China. Nonetheless, the subs are sure to make waves in a region in the grips of a serious naval arms race.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 16 Aug 2013 19:13

Shipyards told to gear up for production of more defence ships.

The shipyards in the country, both in the public sector and private sector, can expect many orders from the Navy and the Coast Guard in the next 10-15 years, as the fleet has to be augmented to meet the future needs, according to Vice-Admiral V.K Namballa, the Director-General of Naval Production, here.

He was speaking at the inaugural session of the two-day national convention of marine engineers which began here on Friday under the auspices of the local chapter of the Institution of Engineers. A two-day seminar on construction of vessels for the Navy and the Indian Coastguard besides the oil and gas industry was organised on the occasion.

He said there were many vintage ships in the fleet of the Navy, but there was no need for any apprehension as the vessels had been suitably modified with weapon platforms to defend the shores of the country. However, the Navy would need at least 50 more ships in the next 15 years or so and the orders worth Rs 3,00,000 crore would be placed with the shipyards in the country.

“The public sector shipyards will have to compete with the private shipyards, as the latter will play a key role in building ships for the Navy. The Coastguard will also need 75-80 vessels in the next decade or so. So there will not be any lack of orders for the shipyards. They will have to rise to the challenge by enhancing their capabilities,” he said.

He said the technology and the expertise for building modern warships was available within the country, even though in certain areas there was need for more R&D. He said 57 per cent indigenisation had been achieved in building warships, which was no mean achievement.

Andhra University Vice-chancellor G.S.N Raju, who was the chief guest, said electro-magnetic interference would have to be taken into account in designing and building vessels and emissions would have to be reduced to the minimum to curb marine pollution.

A. K Mukherjee, the chairman of the Marine Development Board, spoke about the role of the marine engineers in the industry and P. Jairaj Kumar, the Managing Director of Ocean Sparkle Ltd., was felicitated on the occasion.

Visakhapatnam port chairman G.V.L Satya Kumar, who delivered a lecture on “Marine trends – 2030”, said China and India would play a key role in the maritime sector by that time and India, with her young population, would be better placed than China.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Aug 2013 07:48

Yes,there's plenty of work,but delivery has to be on schedule.Not delays in years taking 10 years to build DDGd and FFG and that too at 3-4 times the original cost.These days,the number of vessels of a type is better known by the yards as we have more money budgeted for capital acquisitions.Orders are coming in batches of 3-4 at least.So the yards have no excuse not to be cost-effective.As many informed analysts have said,the problem lies with the procurement system which babudom has ensured tieing up foreign inputs with red tape.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arijitkm » 18 Aug 2013 23:42

Navy may lease Kilo-class subs from Russia

India may explore the possibility of leasing a few kilo-class submarines from Russia, government sources said.

With the INS Sindhurakshak likely to be written off, the navy’s submarine arm will be left with just 13 conventional submarines — two of which are under repair.

And most of them have lived 75% of their operational life.

A navy official said scaling up the capabilities of the submarine fleet was a priority and “all available options” would be explored.
Leasing new submarines from Russia would ultimately be a politico-commercial decision, officials said.

“The navy should lease at least two conventional submarines from Russia as building or buying more may take a lot of time,” former navy chief admiral Arun Prakash said.

The navy’s underwater capabilities are currently at a highly precarious state.

It will be left with merely seven to eight submarines, including a nuclear attack submarine leased from Russia, INS Chakra, in the coming years, as it will phase out the older Russian kilo-class and German HDW Type 209 submarines.

Submarine-induction in the navy has been fraught with time and cost overruns.
Had the government adhered to the original capacity building plan cleared in 1999, the navy should have inducted 12 new conventional submarines by now and an equal number by 2030.

“The last of the submarines of the Sindhugosh-class was inducted in 1999-2000. This shows a big lacuna on part of the government in assessing the situation,” said Commodore (retired) C Uday Bhaskar, one of the country’s leading defence and strategic experts.

Strategic experts claimed that the government was obsessed with designing landbased plans to counter India’s neighbours instead of focusing on the navy.

This despite the fact that the Indian Navy is required to undertake the task of not only protecting the 7,500km-long coastline, but also more than 1,200 islands, and 2.2 million square kilometres of exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

“The Indian Navy is more like a Cinderella Service. It paid a heavy price, because of the inability of bureaucrats and politicians to arrive at the right strategic assessment,” said Bhaskar.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 02:06

Lt.Gen Katoch underscores the neglect by the MOD of the critical underwater arm of the IN as it faces upto the joint challenge from Pak and China in this latest IDR issue.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... lue-water/

Indian Navy: How Much Blue Water!
By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch
Date : 18 Aug , 2013

INS Chakra

The launch of Vikrant, the indigenous aircraft carrier, and first of the Arihant class of indigenous nuclear powered submarines have been great leaps in capacity building for a blue water capability of our Navy. 90 percent of Vikrant has been reportedly built indigenously albeit it is unclear what parts and technology were imported, how crucial are they and what is the cost. The 37,500 ton Vikrant makes India the fifth country after US, UK, Russia and France capable of designing and building a ship of this size. Vikrant will obviously house a number of Mig-29K aircraft, the indigenous LCA and Kamov helicopters though post extensive sea trials, actual commissioning is likely by 2017 or so.

To that end, we are making progress toward acquiring blue water capability and aircraft carriers as the nerve centre and main punch of Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs) are definitely vital but the question mark remains in terms of our submarine capabilities.

With a coastline extending 7,863 kilometres, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 1.02 million squares, island territories, and off shore assets extended over 17,000 square kilometers (including 30 processing wells, 125 well platforms and 3000 kilometres of seabed pipelines) and 97 percent trade by sea, India definitely requires 2-3 aircraft carriers in service at all time. Our Navy is currently undergoing a 15-year modernization plan. The Russian aircraft carrier Gorshkov is likely to join by next year and underwater test firing of BrahMos has been successful. To that end, we are making progress toward acquiring blue water capability and aircraft carriers as the nerve centre and main punch of Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs) are definitely vital but the question mark remains in terms of our submarine capabilities. The Arihant class submarines will help in closing some of the gaps. Post the unfortunate tragedy of INS Sindhurakshak serious concerns have emerged in respect of vintage of our submarines and the pace of their possible replacements.

Perhaps there is a need to closely examine why China that has displayed great forethought in every possible field remains behind India in launching an indigenous aircraft carrier despite top Chinese military and civilian officials periodically affirming the importance and relevance of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) to China’s military modernization. Even though some Western analysts conclude Chinese RMA being limited to ‘pockets of excellence’, surely sea and oceanic capabilities are topmost on Chinese agenda.

The fact is that in terms of field force structuring, Chinese have achieved growth in asymmetric capabilities. They have invested heavily in submarines and guided missile destroyers to counter a probable US CBGs in possible stand-offs, making sea capability the answer to a superior US forces sea control capability. Not that they do not consider CBGs important but that perhaps is the reason that China is yet to launch an indigenous aircraft carrier (though they have acquired a refurbished one from Ukraine in year 2012) but already have 65 submarines (most with adequate reach into Indian Ocean) versus 15 of ours while a small country like Pakistan has eight. Of course the Chinese also have advanced ICBMs, nuke delivery systems, undeclared chemical weapons capability, advanced satellite and anti-satellite capabilities, extensive third dimension capability, a formidable Air Force, potent cyber warfare capability and advanced sub conventional / asymmetric warfare capabilities.

Considering the threats that we face at sea including the security of our Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOCs) on which our economy is heavily dependent, is our submarine development plan on course in the overall mosaic of acquiring true blue water capability. More importantly, is the execution of such a road map being done in the required timeframe in coherent fashion maximizing investments? This is all the more needed because of the downward spiral of India’s economic outlook whose bleakness at least in the immediate future has been exposed by MJ Akbar in his article on the editorial page of the Times of India of today,18 August 2013. There are numerous instances that indicate haphazard approach and lack of integrated and cohesiveness in developing defence capability. With respect to the Navy, the major examples are in terms of submarines and the underwater BrahMos capability.

On 20th March 2013, India achieved the stupendous feat of test firing the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile underwater. Media reports did not clarify what was the platform used for the launch but it obviously was a static platform constructed underwater for there is no submarine in India’s kitty that can fire the Brahmos underwater and will probably need another decade plus to acquire one. Though there was plenty fanfare and praise post the successful firing, did the Defence Minister know there is no submarine to fire the BrahMos underwater? Reminds one that when the Power House of the NHPC Chutak Hydroelectric Project on Suru River in Kargil District of Ladakh was inaugurated in 2005 by the Prime Minister, there were no transmission lines going to any villages. So when the button was pressed, the electrification amongst much clapping was only of the power house itself plus premises of some 150 staff housed in the power house complex since 2003. The NHPC explanation was that the project was by the Centre but transmission lines was responsibility of the State of J&K. So much so for our great coordination capability! And, such incongruous coordination capability is not limited to the civil sector alone. There have been many such examples in the defence sector, latest one being the underwater Brahmos test firing.

The underwater capable Brahmos is ready to be fitted onto the submarines of our Navy, but where are the submarines? The underwater Brahmos cannot be fitted onto our current inventory of Russian Kilo class submarines and German HDW submarines, and reportedly not even the six Scorpene submarines being constructed at Mazagaon Docks at the enormous cost of Rupees 23, 562 crores. Interestingly, these Scorpene submarines (to be delivered in period 2015-2020) are part of ‘Project 75’, which is to equip the navy with state-of-the-art submarines.

Now, if these Scorpene submarines and the underwater Brahmos were being developed concurrently, why could their mating not be planned ab initio? To exploit the underwater Brahmos, India will now need to identify yet another submarine from abroad by issuing a Request For Proposal (RFP), selection, technological collaboration, initial outright buy followed by indigenous production – a process which has not even commenced and will probably take 10-12 years before eventual fructification. Of course Brahmos is likely to be fitted on the nuclear submarine Arihant too which is a long way off. Delays in outfitting the Indian Navy with submarines including delays in ‘Project 75’ due to vested interests are no secret. Some years back, a top naval officer was reportedly given the marching orders because in mid 1990s he favoured joint submarine development with South Korea whose submarines were highly advance.

Not without reason Manibhai Naik, Managing Director, Larsen & Tubro wrote to the Prime Minister in March 2011 saying, “Defence Production (MoD) Joint Secretaries and Secretaries of Defence Ministry are on the Boards of all PSUs — sickest of sick units you can think of who cannot take out one conventional submarine in 15 years now with the result that the gap is widening between us and China and bulk of the time we resort to imports out of no choice. The defence industry which could have really flowered around very high technological development and taken India to the next and next level of technological achievement and excellence is not happening”.

As regards the hyperbole of opening the private industry to the defence sector through Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2013, the Association of Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) has already asked the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to review this policy, terming some of the clauses of its procurement procedure as unreasonable and impractical while some provisions are heavily lopsided in favour of Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs). There is obviously no ‘level playing field’ as being claimed by the government. Yet the charade of improving the DPP is played out internally within MoD without outsourcing it or even involving the private industry while reviewing the policy.

The million dollar question is whether our defence production and defence procurement is matching up to what the Indian Navy wants? Government needs to ensure the blue water capability development is not just through floundering – the right shades of blue must be developed at the right time !

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 06:52

Navy may lease Kilo-class subs from Russia


Do not like the idea of more Russian boats, but like I said IN does not have an option. Unfortunate. MoD needs to fall on the sword.

BTW, it is high time the services be - how does one say this? - more forceful(?) in getting/demanding the attention they so richly deserve from the civilian side of the fence. The tilt is too way out of balance and need to be rectified.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2013 07:00

wiki lists 13 Kilos in russian navy under various commands.
they might be able to spare us 2 as their main focus is on getting more yasen and borei in service.

its also not clear why one Kilo is laid up in vizag for 10+ yrs. surely even GRSE wouldnt take so long in their bad old days. whispers say it might be a ground based test horse for systems meant to go in our n-sub program as we lack any domestic sub to try them on.....take it fwiw. surely it would be with OEM support even if started in india - one more theory could be Rus refused to support our upg in India to make more money and jobs over there or we somehow cut open the sub like a kid dismantling a radio and cannot put it back together again 8)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 08:51

HSL was given the job of the refit of the sub because the Kilos home port is Vizag,plus it was given the work to keep the yard from closing.The simple truth,it couldn't deliver! Which is why all subsequent refits of Kilos are being done in Russia.Plus one must also remember that for the last decade,HSL has been focussing its entire capability upon delivering the ATV and subsequent vessels!

In the "F" mag,10 years ago Rubin offered us full TOT for the Amur,to be built at home involving a pvt. yard.MDL had already embarked upon building a western sub,the Scorpene.Because of this factor,now wanting competition,MDL allegedly say some scuttled building subs in pvt. yards.One must recall how it openly opposed the second line built by pvt. yards insisting that line-2 had to be built by MDL despite the 5 yr. delay in the Scorpenes.Rubin's still waiting for the RFP for 75I! had we gone ahead with the Amur offer at least 5 years ago,the first subs would've been in service by now easing the problem of keeping our aged Kilos alive and kicking.

Even a lease of two Kilos is only an interim firefighting measure.Of the 10 Kilos,only 4-5 will be able to soldier on upto and a little beyond 2020.25 yrs, is the lifespan of a sub.The Def. Sec. is reportedly going to Russia very soon.A comprehensive plan for augmenting the sub fleet along with a request for Russian offers for new subs must be made and quickly evaluated for a decision in principle by the year end or when the PM visits.The second and perhaps third Akula with VLS silos for B'Mos should be finalised.At least we will get a second Akula within 3 years as the Irbis is partly finished.
Last edited by Philip on 19 Aug 2013 09:56, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 19 Aug 2013 09:12

Indian defence planning seems to be planning for failure. This is not the way to run a country. I wonder at what cost will this change.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 19 Aug 2013 12:54

What happened to russian-italian joint venture S-1000 of amur 1650 improvement?

Did they ever make it? Or it just remained a propsal?

What if we get a couple of either S-1000 or Amur 1650 emergency purchase FMS route as we did with C 17 deal.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 19 Aug 2013 13:00

Dhananjay wrote:What if we get a couple of either S-1000 or Amur 1650 emergency purchase FMS route as we did with C 17 deal.


FMS is a program specific to the US, for selling Made in USA stuff.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Aug 2013 13:30

It is better to procure additional Scropene from France and made at their yards by DCN , it will be faster and we can have MDL and DCN deliver both submarine together from two production line. We can opt for MESMA for the one built in France.

Amur production is still long way off and wont be available before 2018. Better to invest in Scorpene lines with MESMA for logistics reason too.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23455 » 19 Aug 2013 13:47

Be surprised if any emergency buys happen from anywhere except leasing subs from Russia.
Just check out the state of the economy - 2014 defence budget will do well to adjust for inflation.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Aug 2013 16:33

Buying Kilos now would be a bandaid like solution to tide over numbers shortcoming that was known to MOD for atleast a decade and they simbly slept over it ....they should have ordered some kilo 636 like 5-7 years back so that we could have got it by now.

Looking forward its better to invest in Scorpene as we know that would be the conventional submarine of the future for the navy , what they need to do is to let DCN build it to avoid delays that MDL is beset with always.

I dont think a Kilo lease is even possible unless the Russia are ready to lower their number of Kilos from operational service , Vietnam is getting new Kilos of most modern type and under works but why would they sacrifice it for IN knowing their problem with China. All in All Kilo lease is not possible ATM.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4067
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 19 Aug 2013 16:49

Vivek K wrote:Indian defence planning seems to be planning for failure. This is not the way to run a country. I wonder at what cost will this change.


the aam admi will pay the price , poverty and illiteracy will probably be in india longer than africa and in larger numbers if same governance continues favouring foreign maal and sending money outside india .. but ot anyway (It is conveniently easy to forget the poor india when the educated ones are largely self obsessed or have dreams of a mighty war machine which in all probability have feet of clay... would we in BR rather worry about the rafale fighter deal , than a deal of same magnitude that could provide 1000 GW of power or a hundred thousand villages with sanitation and drinking water...well i better stop now !)
[on a parallel not for every dollar of FDI did you know indian entities park 60 cents outside the country]

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pragnya » 19 Aug 2013 17:08

Austin wrote:Buying Kilos now would be a bandaid like solution to tide over numbers shortcoming that was known to MOD for atleast a decade and they simbly slept over it ....they should have ordered some kilo 636 like 5-7 years back so that we could have got it by now.


Austin, it seems MOD was not the only culprit. within the navy there were groups for and against the submarine fleet. Ajaishukla had run a story in 2010.

An increasingly apparent reason for the Ministry of Defence’s slow decision-making on a second submarine production line for the Indian Navy is: the deep divisions within the navy over India’s submarine force. A debate rages between the submarine arm and the surface navy — particularly the dominant aviation wing — on whether the future lies in submarines or aircraft carriers. The navy’s submariners, meanwhile, debate the merits of conventional versus nuclear-powered submarines.

Slowed by these internal debates, India’s 30-Year Submarine Construction Plan, which the government approved in 1999, has languished. The 30-Year plan envisioned building 24 conventional submarines in India. Six were to be built from western technology and six with Russian collaboration; then Indian designers, having absorbed the best of both worlds, would build 12 submarines indigenously. Project 75, to build six Scorpene submarines (the “western” six), was contracted in 2005. In this series of articles, Business Standard has reported that the MoD believes it is still 4-6 years away from Project 75I, i.e. beginning work on the second six submarines

A senior retired admiral, reflecting the views of the submarine arm, blames the navy’s “aircraft carrier lobby” for the delay in building submarines. He alleges: “The last two naval chiefs (Admirals Arun Prakash and Sureesh Mehta) were aviators, who had no interest in using the navy’s limited budget for building submarines. So they exploited the division of opinion amongst submariners — the nuclear-powered versus conventional submarine debate — to push submarine building into the future.”


N-subs: India debates, China struggles

Looking forward its better to invest in Scorpene as we know that would be the conventional submarine of the future for the navy , what they need to do is to let DCN build it to avoid delays that MDL is beset with always.


while i agree with you totally, the 'iffy' is how quickly will the DCNS be able to supply them?? and at what cost?? given the rupee/economy slide, it seems not feasible at all. even the done deals are also being dragged.

I dont think a Kilo lease is even possible unless the Russia are ready to lower their number of Kilos from operational service , Vietnam is getting new Kilos of most modern type and under works but why would they sacrifice it for IN knowing their problem with China. All in All Kilo lease is not possible ATM.


agree again. there are going to be no easy and fast solution for this in the short term.

btw can you detail the situation with Amur 1650?? there were reports of some deficiencies in the design and also China was buying them.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 20:36

Probably written just before the sub catstrophe.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19082013-i ... -analysis/

India’s Navy Offers Bright Spots In A Sea Of Failure – Analysis

By Observer Research Foundation
August 19, 2013

By Manoj Joshi

The news may be gloomy from all across the country, but, for the Indian Navy, things are looking good. In this past week, they have crossed two significant milestones. First, the nuclear reactor in the Arihant nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) went critical and the boat is now ready for sea trials. Second, India’s first home-designed aircraft carrier, Vikrant, was launched at the Cochin Shipyard, Kochi.

Both are some years away from being commissioned and receiving the appellation “Indian Naval Ship”, or INS, but they are well on their way. And, as a bonus, in a couple of months from now, the INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) will join the fleet.
Indigenous

The real achievement here is not the launch of these ships, but that two of them have been indigenously designed and built. Well, the Arihant has been built to a Russian design, but the special requirements of fabrication, welding and construction have all been met by Indian companies, public and private.

Of the three services, the Navy has reached the furthest with indigenisation. The Vikrant is entirely Indian designed, as are the Kolkata and its predecessor Delhi class destroyers. Indeed, when it comes to surface ships, the navy can design them all.

The reason it has been forced to buy the Talwar class frigates from Russia is because the public sector shipyards used to insist on making all the warships, even if they would be delayed. The Navy’s order of battle was so depleted that it was forced to go to the Russians.

As far as submarines go, the Indian effort to learn its design foundered on domestic politics, when V.P. Singh scrapped the HDW Class 209 submarine deal because the arrangement involved payment to some agents. Now with the Scorpene class, the learning process has begun again.

The Navy is still dependent on imports for weapons and some sensors. They are already making, with Russian help and to a largely Russian design, the Brahmos supersonic anti-ship missile. But an effort to make surface-to-air missiles was aborted when the DRDO failed to deliver the Trishul.

Having learnt its lesson, the DRDO has now tied up with Israel, to design what is called the Barak 8 Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LRSAM) which will be ready for induction in a year or two. In the meanwhile some of our newer ships will have no SAM cover.

The contrast with the IAF is quite evident. The LCA Tejas is still some years from induction, even though a vast amount of money has been spent on developing it. Indeed, the Air Force’s plight has been evident from the fact that it has had to import the basic training aircraft for its rookie pilots, a little over half a century, yes 52 years after the first flight of the indigenous HF-24 Marut, which was albeit designed by a team led by Dr Kurt Tank for the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).
Delays

It is not as if everything is hunky dory for the Navy. For example, INS Kolakata, the first of its class of destroyers, which was expected to be commissioned in 2010 has now been delayed till 2014 and its sister ships are likely to come even later. The Scorpene submarine project remains plagued by delays and recently, a news report said that it would be delayed an additional year and the first boat would only be commissioned by 2016, instead of 2012 as was initially envisaged.

There are delays plaguing other programmes of the Navy as well, such as the decision to make another class of conventional submarines.

Behind the Navy’s success is project management. Notice, the managing directors of all the key shipyard are retired navy officers – Rear Admiral R.K. Sharawat in Mazgaon Dock Ltd Mumbai, Rear Admiral N.K. Mishra at Hindustan Shipyard, Vizag, Rear Admiral A.K Verma, Garden Reach Shipbuilders, Kolkata, Rear Admiral Vineet Bakshi at the Goa Shipyard and Commodore K Subramaniam at the Cochin Shipyard, Kochi.

Some, but not all of these officers are engineers. Indeed, it is not their engineering skills that matter in the job they are doing, but their managerial abilities. Having served the Navy for a long time, they have considerable knowledge of the user’s requirements, as well as the ability to manage large work teams.
HAL

Contrast this with what has happened in HAL. It used to be managed by senior Air Force officers at several levels from the 1950s till the 1980s. Indeed, four of its Managing Directors-A.M. Engineer, P.C. Lal, Laxman Katre and OP Mehra went on to become the chief of the Air Force. These were the years when the HAL produced the HF-24, India, if not Asia’s first supersonic fighter, the HJT-16 Kiran jet trainer, the HPT 32 basic trainer which retired some years ago after 25 years of service. It was in this era, that the successful Mig 21, Avro 748 and the Jaguar licence assembly programmes were initiated.

Since the 1990s, the HAL has decided to have non-Air Force managers. They are well-qualified people, but somehow not quite up to their job. The story of the LCA is well known, the intermediate jet trainer programme remains in a limbo and the IAF has refused to accept the HAL’s basic trainer offer because it is not sure when it will be delivered.

A measure of its continuing failure is the report that the HAL is surrendering anywhere between 30 to 50 per cent of its workshare of the fifth generation fighter development programme to the Russians because it has not been able to manage its manpower. India is going to spend tens of billions of dollars on this, and yet gain little by way of design experience.

Last year, the Indian Air Force made an effort to convince the government to accept one of its most distinguished air marshals as the Chairman and Managing Director of the HAL, but it was turned down. These are lessons for everyone to see, but somehow the system – our “see nothing and learn nothing” bureaucracy and political leaders cannot learn them.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation and a Contributing Editor of Mail Today)

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby wig » 19 Aug 2013 20:58

India submarine blasts: Submarines review launched
India has ordered a review of its submarines' weapons safety systems, after initial investigations showed arms on board the INS Sindhurakshak may have played a role in its sinking


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-23756348


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests