Indian Naval Discussion

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21920
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Sep 2013 14:54

Sub-launched version of BrahMos rocket ready for installing

"The successful test of the BrahMos rocket demonstrated possibilities for the launch of the rocket from an underwater platform. The rocket is ready for installation on submarines. No additional tests are required," Dr. Pillai pointed out.

BrahMos rockets are expected to be installed on six non-atomic submarines of Design 751, a tender for the supply of which will be announced in India soon. Russia will also participate in the prospective tender with submarines of "Amur-1650" Design and, according to Andrei Baranov, General Director of the Central Marine Technology Design Bureau Rubin, in case of win, will be able to turn over a type ship to New Delhi five years from the moment an appropriate contract is concluded. This may refer to a 2019-2020 period.

"Our team closely cooperates with the army so that the submarine-launched rocket could be phased into service even earlier than planned," Dr. Pillai added.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby mody » 26 Sep 2013 15:23

The guy who has written the above IDRW article seems to be completely out of his mind.
MDL can deliver 1 scorpene every year or every 9 months, because the hulls for the same are ready.

They cannot build scorpene subs from scratch and deliver 1 new sub every year. It will take atleast 9-10 years at best, for MDL to deliver 6 brand new scorpene subs.
Also adding a new VLS pack for brahmos or nirbhay as part of upgrade, is almost comical.
It would involve cutting up the hull and and adding atleast another 4 meters in length to the sub. Plus adding a lot of weight, completely changing the center of gravity of the sub. This given the troubles we are having upgrading the old Kilo class on our own.

Also why go for U-209 based subs, after making scorpene? What does U-209 offer that the scorpene cannot? U-209 is a 25 year old design, whereas the scorpene is at worst a 10 year old design.

The easiest way to get out of the submarine mess for the IN is perhaps to do the following:

1). Try to upgrade the U-209 and try and fit Harpoon Block-II missiles to it. Torpedo tube launched.
2). Order 3 new Kilo 636 subs from russia, the latest variant, with Club missiles and the usual refinements, like the Indian batteries and if required the USHUS sonar suite. Delivery latest by 2018 for all 3.
3). Order 3 more scorpene subs, with AIP, as follow on to the current order. Start manufacturing huls from next year, if possible.
4). Sign deal with russia for lease of second Akula-II class SSN. Delivery by 2018-2020 hopefully.
5). Last option would be a wild shot to try and lease 2 LA class SSN's from US, for 10 years. MMS can try to take a wild swing and ask Obama to sweeten the nuclear deal a little and add a couple of LA class subs. We can replace the Tomahawks, with Nirbhay.
Delivery by 2015.

For the future, we can give a look at the new improved Lada/Amur class that the russian's are offering and try to go for a MKI version of the same, with VLS Brahmos, if possible or Club missiles, if brahmos is deemed too big. Have the russians deliver 2 by 2020 and produce another 6 at Indian private yard.

Also derive our own scorpene MKI version, from the design and ToT that we have received. Design an enlarged version, that can accommodate, Indian Varunastra torpedo's and enable firing nirbhay missiles from TT tubes. If Brahmos VLS for upto 8 missiles can be added, may be considered. AIP from DRDO or Mesma or Sterling should be used on these scorpene MKI subs. The production for these can start from 2020, at MDL.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RKumar » 26 Sep 2013 16:22

The above article might be correct for the conventional force. But he is forgetting the induction of N-powered subs. Where one N-sub capability wise is equal to 4 conventional subs with one drawback that it can't be at 4 different places.

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kuldipchager » 26 Sep 2013 20:11

This is the time when Indian Navy can ask MDL to try and add a VLS missile firing capsule (for firing Brahmos/Nirbhay SLCM)/ module into it and test it
Once successful then remaining 5 hulls of the first batch of P75 Scorpenes can be added with missile firing capsule / module
With the AIP module (Stirling AIP having been selected) added in 2nd batch of Scorpenes, the same AIP module can also be added into the 1st batch of P75




Why we are discussing Braumo missile on French or German subs. We should have gone with Russian Aumer 1650.French doesn't need missile on there subs. So we can not tell them. If we wants we have to pay for it. It will be too expenses.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Sep 2013 01:28

The Scorpenes will come with sub-launched Exocets,which are inferior to our Klubs.Therefore,a few more of the latest versions of the Kilo 636 being built for Russia would be welcome in keeping numbers of our Kilo class healthy,as eventually 5-6 Kilos would've been upgraded.The Scorpenes cannot accommodate Brahmos and we need to evaluate them in service before going in for a few more.The U-209s can best be upgraded as much as possible.They and their successor classes are too small to be able to accommodate Brahmos,but what may be possible is for exploring the possibility of modifying one ,adding a plug with the German AIP system.If such an upgrade addss 10 more years to the sub's life it would be worth it only if the costs are reasonable.What is readily available however is the Amur/Lada with Brahmos,which has superior quieting than the Kilos ,which will shortly also have its own AIP system,superior to MESMA,which has yet to be finalised for our Scorpenes.The Amur subs will each be approx. half the price of the ultra-expensive Scorpenes and cost is extremely important.These could be the second line of subs to be built. Russia has finally proven the design and has given thr go-ahead for series production.There are unconfirmed reports about the Chinese also wanting to build and acquire the same design in large number.A couple more Akulas will also support our indigenous ATVs being built at Vizag.One more is semi-complete and from some sources will be an improvement over the Chakra,with VLS silos abaft the sail that can accommodate Brahmos and other missiles.Given the size of the IOR and the IN's "look east" forward policy,we will need at least two classes for littoral and IOR blue-water ops and nuclear subs for trans-ocean ops.

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kuldipchager » 27 Sep 2013 02:14

Thanks Mr. Phillips.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Sep 2013 02:55

Just see how the SoKos are building 20 of the world's largest ship ever!
In fact it may be worthwhile for the In to design some of our large warships like carriers/amphib vessels and get them built in Korea at great speed and within budget too.

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013 ... n.bw.video

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Sep 2013 11:34

In the IN long term equipment plan, there are supposed to be 24 subs. First 6 are Scorpenes. The second 6 are P-75I. The third lot will be what is the latest when it is floated etc. P-75I is tendered late. Hope they float third lot even before Scorpenes are finished so that we stick to original timeline.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7835
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 27 Sep 2013 11:48

^^^

Is the IN planning to replicate the process to be followed for the P75I. For all the new boats. Or will they seek to use domestic design effort for the 3rd lot.

Also, please confirm, if you have any information, that the Scorpeans being built by the MDL. In terms of Structural work, 100% is being done by the MDL. With no kits being imported from France.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Sep 2013 12:01

You can understand in detail in Indian Navy P-75 I Submarine project should be indigenous and after the article was written one of the vendors responded with this Willing to share torpedo technologies with India – Atlas Elektronik India CEO

While it is very difficult to comment on what will happen beyond P-75I, with above two articles, I have already attempted to make understand how it will be in future. There might not be per say submarine imports and vendors will set up consultancies and production within India to support the future submarine projects.

Scorpene is a very tedious work. One hand there is development of Indian vendors and the second is quality control. Same problem what DRDO faces today. Few months back the first sub's piping was rejected by DCNS and had to be redone. Project Manager was kicked off due to corruption and new one appears to be not in. The hull is complete and the major components are ready. They have to assemble it and here is the issue surfacing. It is already known that it is 1 more year late.

I will tell you what I told Maz. MDL has only structual works in ships and submarines. Rest is done by other contractors and agencies, which are causing delays. MDL is not be be blamed. Every instance, they have finished the structure and other sections ahead of time.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 29 Sep 2013 03:39

Russian Admiral was not very enthusiastic about the Lada Class. An article from last year.


Snehashis wrote:The Russian Navy will not take the "Lada"



The Russian Navy rejects the newest submarines "Lada". This was told RIA Novosti in an exclusive interview with the Commander of the Fleet Vladimir Vysotsky . Multi-year saga of a prototype non-nuclear submarines near maritime zones coming to an end: instead of buying a fleet of very different submarines, until recently, were being built for export.

In its current form is not needed

We are talking about the project 677 "Lada", which is radically improving our fleet familiar diesel-electric submarines of Project 877 "Halibut". Parent Project 677 submarine ("St. Petersburg") was constructed and commissioned to the Navy in 2010, but has not yet entered service. And that, judging by the reaction of the military, there are good reasons.

"There is a towing operation of the submarine" Saint Petersburg ", which stated specifications are not shown. Reason is simple ... The main flaw - it's main power plant," - said the Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, adding : "In its present form "Lada" Navy Russia does not want. "

On the refusal of the fleet of submarines of Project 677 press wrote at the end of 2011, and the military themselves belonged to that ship very cautious - they did not like it (and judging by the words of the Commander in Chief, not satisfied until now) the technical readiness of the boat.

Underwater stand the test of nerves

"St. Petersburg" very unlucky. Incorporated in 1997, this boat was built a long and painful. On the water it pushed only in 2004, but did not pass the Navy worked. Navy simply did not want to assume that this boat was going.

It was planned that the "St. Petersburg" will be the first so-called "non-nuclear," the Russian submarine fleet. "Non-nuclear" submarines in Russia called submarines with air independent power plants combined, to distinguish it from the classic "diesel-electric" in need of air for diesel engines, and the water moving on the batteries.

But in the end create a setup time and failed. "St. Petersburg" and without it has become something of a test bed for testing all sorts of innovations (in a number of data, the percentage of fundamentally new technology in it up to 70%). The boat was tortured childhood illnesses.

For years, does not solve problems with the main power unit (GEU). Implemented in the head "Lada" scheme with full elektrodvizheniem through the installation of all-mode propulsion motor, Petersburg shipbuilders until the end and failed to make the installation work at full planned capacity due to reliability.

Extremely ill-conceived ergonomics and an inconvenient layout of equipment called GEMs just fountains of love from the crew and participated in the commissioning engineers - had to address the persistent failure to openly heroic terms.

Over the years, not being finalized and "Lear" - sonar system (SJC) boat. For more nervous in the situation has made and what is not fully developed sonar "traditional" contractors: Moscow by "Wave" and not the usual SRI "Oceanpribor." Against the backdrop of a prolonged failure to bring the basic system is aroused suspicion in the "cuts" of allocated funds. However, according to recent reports, the problem seems to be in the SAC largely solved.

As a result, in the spring of 2010 the boat is literally pushed out to the fleet, but the Navy agreed to transfer only in the towing operation. There, she seems to have stuck, and for a long time. Work on fine-tuning the boat going, but the military are losing patience and are willing to consider "Saint Petersburg" as a towing rig for running all kinds of new solutions, but not as a warship.

Advanced technology gap?

According to Commander Vladimir Vysotsky, one of the buildings of 677-year project will still be built with airindependent power plant. Rather, we are talking about the second case, because it is difficult to imagine that the Navy in the present circumstances can afford to just two "preliminary" stand, and only then, the third in a row - the boat with the anaerobic engine.

Commander in Chief is not made clear what specific version of the powerplant airindependent question. But for a number of indirect data in the last couple of years, Russia has been making a lot of effort to get the German technology of electrochemical generators (ECG). This technology, in particular, used in the propulsion of German submarines of Project 212.

However, currently more promising is a completely different technology - based on the so-called "Stirling engine". Built on this principle, in particular, the Swedish non-nuclear submarine Gotland type and Japanese type "Soryu", and that these technologies have shown great interest in the German shipbuilders. There is an active non-nuclear submarine design based on the "Stirling engine", in particular, and in China.


The question of whether Russia will not get to the mid-2010s technology had already dropped the developed countries, have yet to comprehend. On the other hand, now in the fleet yet and such. There remain only the standard exhaust "diesel".

The most important industries for us to export

Delays in the development of new technology once again returned to the military to accept and successfully tested both in military shipbuilding and in other areas. We are talking about buying a slightly modified version of the export of military products.

Navy has already ordered the project 1135.7 frigate, which are finalized minimalnuo frigates 1135.6 (Talwar), which were built or under construction in Russia for the Indian Navy. Air Force took the multi-purpose fighter Su-30M2 (export version of Su-30MK2 produced "Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association" holding company "Dry"), plan to take the Su-30cm (another version of the export fighter - the Su-30MKI from the Corporation "Irkut" .)

Stories when the export machinery was bought not directly, but work on its creation allowed to bring to mind the interior designs are also well known. So in the anti-aircraft defense appeared missile-gun system near zone "Armour-C1", which originally had been crafted to the requirements of the United Arab Emirates. And now, according to the military, all anti-aircraft missile system S-300P family in Russia modernized under the program "Favorite" - these works were originally on the export patterns of S-300PMU-2.

That is the case with "diesel" decided to take what is already there: Boat platform 636. This is the export version of the Soviet submarines of Project 877 "Halibut". After 1991, the 636 th project bought China, Algeria and Vietnam, in addition to the project 877E/EKM, boats which also went to Poland, Romania, India, China and Iran.

In 2010-2011, the fleet of boats ordered the construction of the project finalized by 636.3 , three of them planned to be in 2014, one in 2015, two more in 2016, but only until 2020, the Navy wants to get 8-10 new "diesel" .

So far, shipbuilders create and bring to mind a new technology and how it will still be in demand in the world, even after five years - a question. A "vacancy" in the battle of the fleet should be closed now, and nothing better success on the international market global brand Kilo-class (as designated by NATO Soviet submarine project 877 and 636) in the hands of the domestic shipbuilding industry is not. So why invent the wheel?


Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 29 Sep 2013 06:12

Is there any chance of us getting 'pumpjet propulsor' & 'optronic mast' tech in near future?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63150
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Sep 2013 06:36

optronic mast I assume you mean non-hull penetrating is COTS now but makes sense if the control room is sought to be relocated from under the sail to somewhere else and also save a bit of weight in pipes etc..maybe devote that volume inside the sail for Marcos gear stowage. else it is not a must have. even for hull penetrating , I think thermal cameras for night vision etc are standard on all our subs now.

pumpjet propulsor afaik needs additional power so might need a powerful SSN steam turbine to drive it. its only uses in the latest western SSN ....we will need to develop it internally if wanted in arihant2 class ... not even Yasen class has it. maybe its gora psyops and not really needed because the russians with their mastery of hydrodynamics and powerful n-reactor could sure have installed in yasen if it added some value.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Sep 2013 09:33

The Lada/Amur class is now supposedly being ordered by the PLAN,a report in May said.Scorpenes are prohibitively expensive even for the non-AIP ones.Some IN sources say that by the time they are delivered they will be obsolete technologically.They cannot accommodate advanced anti-ship or land attack missiles like Brahmos or even Klub. The Russians are also building more advanced Kilos,with several improvements,very quickly and very fast.Retd.Adm. Arun Prakash has advocated the buying of at least 2 new Kilos which can arrive within 3 years.We could even get them faster if either Russia or Vietnam transfer one or two of their subs being built as a special favour. But these will only be an interim solution.To leverage our head start that we have possessing a sub-launched Brahmos,a new boat that has VLS silos for the same is a neccessity.Perhaps one or two of our Kilos under refit could be turned into X-perimental subs fitted with a Brahmos "plug".If successful,more of the same could be ordered and a futuristic AIP sub designed for the future,while the indigenous nuclear boat exercise is accelerated both for SSBNs and SSGNs.

http://sundodgers.com/2013/02/25/back-f ... submarine/

Back From The Dead – Russian Lada Class Submarine

A year after cancelling its Lada class diesel-electric submarines, Russia has revived the project as part of a joint development effort with an Italian firm (Fincantieri). This effort will build the S-1000 submarine, as well as revive other export versions of Lada. These were called the Amur class, and the S-1000 began as the Amur 950. This was what the export version of the Lada was to be called but working with an Italian shipbuilder the Amur 950 has been transformed into the cheaper (less than $200 million each) S-1000 class submarine. While Fincantieri has never built subs (just destroyers, aircraft carriers, and patrol craft), it is one of the largest ship builders in Europe and has access to a lot of Western military technology. The S-1000 will have a crew of only 16. Top submerged speed is 26 kilometers an hour. There are six torpedo tubes and an AIP (air independent propulsion) system to extend underwater endurance to 15 days or more. Instead of eight torpedo reloads, the S-1000 can carry a dozen commandoes.

Here is a good review of the Russian sub fleet by the USNI Proceedings.Some details posted earlier.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... eet-reborn

Russian Submarine Fleet Reborn
23 3

9
Print




Proceedings Magazine - June 2013 Vol. 139/6/1,324
By Lieutenant Commander Tom Spahn, U.S. Navy Reserve
A new breed of ‘alarmingly sophisticated’ submarines stirs memories of past Soviet aggression, just as Moscow becomes increasingly assertive on the international stage.

Often overshadowed by the ongoing discussion of the relentless growth and rapid evolution of China’s navy, another dangerous and unpredictable potential threat stirs in the East. From the ashes of the Soviet Union’s mighty fleet of nuclear submarines, Russia has embarked on an aggressive effort to resurrect its undersea-warfare capabilities. Although much has changed since the glory days of perilous cat-and-mouse adventures between U.S. and Soviet submarines, Russia has unfortunately rekindled some of the aggressive nationalism reminiscent of the Cold War. As increasingly vitriolic rhetoric flows despite President Barack Obama’s repeated overtures of friendship, Moscow’s intentions are particularly troubling considering its recent rush to claim newly accessible resources laid bare by the receding Arctic ice sheet.

Some would argue that this posturing represents sinister expansionist goals that harken back to the former Soviet Union’s unilateral annexation of territory. Meanwhile, accompanying these efforts to expand its sphere of influence, Russia has developed a new generation of alarmingly sophisticated submarines, both nuclear and diesel-electric. Moreover, and likely far more dangerous to world peace and stability, Moscow has thus far shown little, if any, restraint in offering its advanced military technologies for purchase to the highest bidder, regardless of any particular regime’s scruples (or lack thereof).

The development and proliferation of the next generation of Russian-built submarines will likely dramatically alter the world’s future geopolitical landscape. The United States and its allies must understand and appreciate the capabilities of these new potential adversaries and strive to develop new skills, while retaining past expertise, to respond to the threats that prowl the ocean depths.

The Russian nuclear submarine fleet, once the pride of the Soviet Navy and scourge of U.S. war planners, has been reduced to an embarrassment as dozens of mighty nuclear boats have languished for decades, slowly rotting pierside. Numerous publicly available photographs show rows of once-proud Akula- and Typhoon-class submarines, long the U.S. Los Angeles –class’s arch-nemeses, reduced to decrepit hulks, deteriorated far beyond seaworthiness. Even many American submariners, who spent their careers honing skills necessary to seek and destroy these potential enemies, can’t help but feel a twinge of remorse at the sorry state of their rivals—alpha predators of the deep left to wither in captivity. However, new designs and construction projects are revitalizing the core of Russia’s undersea nuclear arsenal.

Russian nuclear submarine-design activity in the past decade has primarily trended toward a consolidation of capabilities from a wide range of specialized classes filling discrete roles, to multi-mission submarines capable of accomplishing a broad range of tasking. 1 Thus, the future Russian nuclear submarine fleet will consist of only two classes, the Borei-class ballistic-missile submarine and the Yasen-class fast-attack sub.
A North Wind from the East

As many as ten Borei (or “North Wind”) submarines are scheduled to provide a cost-effective solution for Russia’s future nuclear-deterrence requirements, eventually replacing the aging Delta IIIs, IVs, and monstrous Typhoon missile boats by 2020.

The lead boat of the class, the Yury Dolgoruky , has endured a long and rocky road to active service. In production since 1996, the project suffered a lengthy redesign process when the Russian Navy abandoned its originally planned primary armament, the R-39UTTH “Bark” intercontinental ballistic missile, which had been designed in parallel with the submarine itself. 2 After a substantial reworking to accommodate the more sophisticated RSM-56 “Bulava” missile, the program endured further delays when the Bulava suffered a series of embarrassing failures, ultimately achieving an unimpressive 9-for-16 record during testing. 3 Finally, in January 2013, the Bulava entered service and, due to its smaller size compared to the Bark, the Boreis are able to carry 16 missiles, four more than the originally planned 12. Unconfirmed reports indicate that a future improved variant of the Borei will gain an additional four missile tubes; however, other sources dispute this possible improvement. 4

Despite its challenges, the Borei emerged as an impressive platform. Although at approximately 558 feet long and displacing 24,000 tons submerged she is far less visually striking than the gigantic Typhoon she will replace, the Borei contains the best of modern submarine technology, including advanced sound-silencing and pump jet propulsion similar to that found on the U.S. Virginia class. The Borei also boasts an impressive price-tag, costing just 23 billion rubles ($890 million) per hull, a bargain compared to approximately $2 billion for a new U.S. Ohio -class submarine. 5

Like its launch platform, the Bulava missile also represents a dramatic leap forward in technology. Similar to its land-based variant, the Topol-M SS-27, to thwart evolving Western ballistic-missile-defense shields, the Bulava can conduct evasive post-launch maneuvers and deploy a variety of countermeasures and decoys to defend against interception. Its ten hypersonic, independently maneuverable warheads are protected against both physical and electromagnetic-pulse damage to ensure that they can reach their targets intact. 6

In a way, the Borei represents a literal rebirth of the Soviet submarine fleet; several boats in the class are being constructed partially from the hulls of scrapped or unfinished Akulas and Akula IIIs. 7
An Ash Tree with Soviet Roots

With its air power desperately eroded, Russia has placed an increasing burden on its submarine fleet to close the widening sea-control capability gap with NATO. The cornerstone component of this strategy, the Yasen (or “Ash Tree”) fast-attack submarine class fills antisubmarine, antisurface, and tactical land-attack roles, replacing both the Akula-class fast-attack submarines and the Oscar-class guided-missile boats.

The Yasen program can trace its origins back to the Soviet era, but after repeated setbacks and delays, production finally began in 1993, with completion originally scheduled for 1998. By 1999, however, reports indicated that shipbuilders had only completed 10 percent of the lead ship. 8 With the Borei-class program receiving priority funding, production again fell behind, and the first Yasen finally launched in September 2011, with planned entry into active service slipping to summer 2013. Work on a second hull began in 2009 with completion scheduled for 2014; however, costs have allegedly ballooned from approximately $1.5 billion for the lead boat to $3 billion for the second, jeopardizing the entire program. 9 Although the third hull has yet to be laid down as of January 2013, Russia has ordered four more for delivery scheduled by 2016. 10

Despite the delays over the decades, it appears that the submarine’s designers have kept pace with technological advances in the interim. For example, the crew size has reportedly shrunk to a complement of around 90 sailors, revealing a high degree of automation. 11 By comparison, even the sophisticated American Virginia class requires a crew of 134. The Yasen also has incorporated advanced sound-silencing techniques that evolved over the life of the Akula class, making her far quieter than her predecessors. Supposedly, the submarine is equipped with Russia’s first spherical-array sonar system, with slanted torpedo tubes to accommodate the extra hydrophones, but some analysts doubt the accuracy of these claims and speculate that she actually retains a cylindrical array. 12

While the technological advances are impressive, the Yasen’s armament makes her truly terrifying. She bristles with eight 25.6-inch torpedo tubes capable of launching the supercavitating VA-111 “Schval” torpedo, Russia’s “carrier killer.” The tip of the rocket-propelled Schval creates a cavitation bubble before it, which the weapon rides to reach speeds in excess of 200 knots, many times faster than a conventional torpedo. 13 Although at those speeds active acoustic guidance systems would be ineffective, such guidance is not required—a target would have little or no time to react and take evasive action even if it heard the launch transient. Furthermore, although reports conflict as to whether the capability currently exists, the original Schval design accommodated a nuclear warhead, adding the power to annihilate even the largest aircraft carriers without warning, with a single shot.

The Yasen can also launch a variety of cruise missiles, including the SS-N-26 “Onyx” and the SS-N-27 “Klub” series from either its eight vertical-launch tubes or torpedo tubes. 14 The Klub series multi-role missile system boasts a diverse range of capabilities, with the 3M54E (terminal-supersonic) and 3M54E1 (subsonic) variants filling antiship roles, 91RE1 for antisubmarine attacks, and the 3M14E capable of accomplishing land-attack missions. 15 Arguably the most advanced submarine-launched variant, the primarily subsonic 3M54E “Sizzler,” can likely defeat many Western missile-defense shields through a series of protective measures, such as a sea-skimming cruise stage combined with a warhead that separates from the body of the missile and carries out its terminal attack at supersonic speeds. 16 The formidable “Onyx,” on the other hand, cruises at supersonic speeds to conduct sea-skimming antiship attacks at ranges up to 186 miles. 17

In a first for nuclear warships, shortly after the launch of the lead Yasen, India entered into a ten-year lease for an Akula II–class nuclear fast-attack submarine. It remains unclear if Moscow intends to expand this program as more Yasens come online to replace aging Akulas, but this would follow the dangerous precedent set by the widespread export of Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines.

Building on the Kilo’s Legacy

In addition to substantial investment in its nuclear fleet, Moscow plans to significantly expand the capability of its diesel boats. Although seeming at least conversationally less worrying than their nuclear sisters, diesel submarines pose an enormous strategic threat to world peace and stability. Diesel-electric submarines do not require constantly operating reactor-cooling pumps or other noisy equipment to service their nuclear-propulsion plants and are therefore, when running on batteries, virtually undetectable even by the most advanced sonar systems. Moreover, exported Russian diesel submarines are popular among nations worldwide. Optimized for littoral operations, these boats are perfect low-cost tools for regimes to threaten sea lines of communication off their nations’ coasts. Even the threat of a diesel submarine lurking just offshore in a critical strait could significantly disrupt international maritime commerce and provide substantial leverage for even a relatively weak nation to use against its neighbors.

The Lada-class diesel-electric submarine (sometimes referred to as the Saint Petersburg class after the name of the lead ship) follows in the footsteps of her incredibly successful predecessor, the Kilo class. Although the Lada, like her nuclear counterparts, has suffered numerous delays and setbacks, her capabilities eclipse the Kilo in every category. She is lighter, faster, and although not confirmed, may incorporate an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. In development for decades but only recently sufficiently safe for widespread acceptance, AIP systems use an electrical storage system such as hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to allow a diesel submarine to operate and charge batteries without accessing atmospheric air. This gives a submarine equipped with such a system a dramatic advantage over previous generations by mitigating the diesel boat’s Achilles’ heel—the need to snorkel while running her diesel engine to charge her batteries. If the Lada class does employ an AIP system as suspected, her submerged endurance would increase drastically from 15 up to as many as 45 days. 18

To reduce manning requirements, and likely increase her export marketability, the Lada utilizes a new automated combat system. Leveraging this upgrade and further capitalizing on the worldwide demand for Kilos, Moscow has planned to build a variant of the Lada specifically for export, the “Amur.” 19 The Lada/Amur will likely continue the legacy of the Kilo, which because of her widespread proliferation, necessitated a fundamental shift in worldwide naval strategy. Now a hostile government need not undertake the lengthy and enormously expensive process of amassing a large surface fleet to pose a significant threat to major sea lines of communication. Rather, for the relatively low price of around $300 million, even a small nation with a single submarine operating off its shores can dramatically alter the strategic balance of a region. China, the proud owner of at least ten Kilos, has already ordered four Amur-class submarines from the Russian Navy. 20 The thought of several of these nearly undetectable threats lurking in the South China Sea, armed with Sizzler missiles, surely causes military planners developing strategies to protect Taiwan from a Chinese incursion a great deal of anxiety.

A Threat Worthy of Concern?

While the revitalization of the Russian Navy’s submarine fleet may not, in and of itself, be of particular concern, especially with the numerous setbacks and challenges the programs have faced, one must consider these developments in light of Russia’s increasingly aggressive geopolitical posturing. Several embarrassing incidents involving Chinese submarines appearing, undetected, shockingly close to American carrier strike groups have generated major news headlines in recent years. Meanwhile, perhaps overshadowed by domestic events, Russian submarines have engaged in no less daring escapades with little fanfare. Although Moscow has made no attempt to conceal the fact that it plans to accelerate submarine operations, the audacity of some recent patrols exemplifies a troubling trend. In late 2012, an Akula allegedly remained undetected for several weeks while conducting operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Later that same year, a Sierra-2-class guided-missile submarine crept within a mere 200 miles of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. In the Mediterranean, Russian submarines have similarly increased operations, likely including participation in a massive naval exercise off the coast of Syria in January 2013.

In addition to the provocative nature of this increased submarine activity, Moscow has repeatedly engaged in symbolically threatening gestures. For example, the launch of the Yury Dolgoruky , the lead ship of the Borei class, coincided with the aforementioned naval exercise off Syria’s Mediterranean shore. At the event, the deputy prime minister of military industries did not exactly help ease any apprehension when he wrote on Twitter, apparently tongue-in-cheek, “You bourgeoisie tremble! You are screwed!” 21 One doubts whether Western military commanders got the joke. Meanwhile, in the Arctic, while planting a flag under the ice may have served as little more than a somewhat comical publicity stunt, it certainly did little to soothe fears that Russia may revive Soviet expansionist tendencies.

Although some of this aggressive posturing makes it seem increasingly doubtful, perhaps (and hopefully) Russia and the United States truly can, as President Obama suggested, hit the “reset” button on rather chilly relations. However, even if the two nations can improve the damaged relationship, there is no indication that Russia will halt exports of some of its most advanced submarines to the rest of the world, regardless of the regime in power. Because of this activity, the rebirth of the Russian submarine force, although progressing more haltingly than the Chinese Navy’s rise, will likely have significantly farther-reaching, more severe, and frighteningly unpredictable consequences for world stability.

Diesel Distractions, Nuclear Rumblings

Since the potential threat from both Russian diesel-electric and nuclear submarines will almost certainly continue to grow, the United States must stand ready at all times to counter either of these platforms if necessary. Though initially caught somewhat off-guard by the rapid proliferation of Russian-built diesel boats, U.S. commanders have aggressively taken steps to recover the initiative. The Naval Mine and Antisubmarine Warfare Command (NMAWC), charged to act as an “AntiSubmarine Warfare (ASW) Center of Excellence,” has answered the call, developing critical doctrine and tactics and providing the numbered fleet commanders with the new technologies and strategies they need to understand and respond to these stealthy new diesel adversaries. However, after decades without facing a credible threat, the Navy risks allowing its ability to respond to nuclear-submarine activity to languish.

One particular deficiency may serve as a warning of this danger, or may merely represent an opportunity for further improvement. In either case, it requires urgent action. Since nuclear submarines can linger submerged essentially indefinitely nearly anywhere in the ocean, prosecuting these potential threats requires effective worldwide coordination and employment of thinly spread assets. This daunting task falls to theater ASW watch officers (TASWOs), a role typically filled by the Navy Reserve. For training, the cadre of reserve officers who stand this watch typically only participate in one two-week Fleet exercise incorporating ASW maneuvers per year, supplemented by classroom training during one weekend per month. Notionally, NMAWC has responsibility for coordinating Fleet-wide TASWO training and qualification; however, little, if any, communication occurs between NMAWC and the ASW reserve units spread across the country. To date, no effective nationwide coordination or standardization of training materials or practices exists, and therefore reserve officers qualified or seeking TASWO qualification often use inadequate and outdated training resources to maintain and improve their proficiency between exercises.

Despite these problems, in peacetime the Navy Reserve submarine force does manage to provide adequately trained TASWOs to fulfill its theater ASW responsibilities. However unlikely the event of a conflict involving widespread use of nuclear submarines, the time and training required to rapidly improve from adequacy to expertise could leave the United States at a significant disadvantage. To reduce this risk, a relatively modest effort now to improve NMAWC’s coordination with ASW reserve units in order to maximize the value of limited training opportunities will pay enormous dividends in the future.

Although in isolation one may argue that any disadvantage created by a temporary deficiency in theater ASW expertise could likely be remedied relatively quickly, the more pressing question is whether the training shortfall represents the beginning of a dangerous trend of Navy leadership overlooking critically important skills necessary to combat future nuclear-submarine threats. If so, looming budget cuts and ongoing force reductions will no doubt feed the temptation to focus dwindling resources solely on the immediate pressing threat from widespread use of diesel-electric submarines.

While the potential threat from Russian-built diesel boats certainly continues to grow at an alarming rate, U.S. commanders still cannot forget that while these highly capable and stealthy warships grab headlines as favored bargaining tools of rogue regimes, elsewhere their fearsome nuclear sisters slip silently into service in the hands of a former enemy. Thus, the Navy must relentlessly strive to improve its capabilities to remain ever ready to answer the challenge of oceans teeming with inexpensive but deadly diesel boats. At the same time, if not careful to preserve the precious skills that a generation of submariners honed to deadly perfection while facing nuclear adversaries on the front lines of the Cold War, by the time we realize that we need them, it may be too late.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RKumar » 29 Sep 2013 12:38

^ Philip sir ... we don't want to repeat saga lets leave dead in peace instead of try to bring them back to life.

There is no way Vietnam will give their Kilo and that might be configured to their personal requirements. The same can be said to Russian Kilos. Why to order 2 Kilos and stick with them for next 30 years when all others will be retiring in near future. Better to lease/buy a N-sub from Russia then buying 2 kilos.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 381
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nikhil_p » 30 Sep 2013 20:57

because 2 Kilos =\= one nuclear sub.

The Kilos are excellent for fighting in the tropics and shallow basins. The one advantage that a diesel electric has over a nuke sub is the ability to work on batteries without 'anything moving'. On a nuclear submarine typically there will be at least a few pumps running to circulate the coolant (water) around the reactor. While I dont say buy Kilos, there are some better designs out there which may be used.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1792
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 30 Sep 2013 21:43

Philip wrote:The Lada/Amur class is now supposedly being ordered by the PLAN,a report in May said

There have been no confirmations' of that.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 01 Oct 2013 03:57

CJ nice professional interview with Atlas. Good show.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Oct 2013 04:54

Actually,at around $300M per sub,one could own 3 Kilos for the price of a 10 yr. lease of an Akula.The sad fact is that the IN needs them both,conventional AIP subs as well as N-boats.The other point is that we already have a good number of trained submariners who say some reports,need subs to serve on.The Kilo being the most numerous in service would be easiest to induct,at least a couple of the newer upgraded versions.Q.What is the best sub to replace the SRakshak? The obvious answer is a Kilo.

We used to have 18 conventional subs operational,10 kilos,4 U-209s and 4 elderly Foxtrots,of which some were used for experiments and training.We now on paper have just 13,of which only about 8-10 are combat worthy from some reports.By the time the 6 Scorpenes are inducted,and it will be a moot point as to how many of them will have AIP,some analysts saying that it will be almost obsolete when finally inducted,and also will be time to retire some of the the upgraded Kilos too! Plugging the ever-widening sub fleet gap in a timely manner is going to be a challenging task.

Najunamar
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 16:40
Location: USA

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Najunamar » 01 Oct 2013 08:44

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/fi ... 80248.html

:eek: Hope we get INS Vikramaditya soon....

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2506
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 01 Oct 2013 22:30

chackojoseph wrote:I will tell you what I told Maz. MDL has only structual works in ships and submarines. Rest is done by other contractors and agencies, which are causing delays. MDL is not be be blamed. Every instance, they have finished the structure and other sections ahead of time.


That's precisely the problem, CJ. MDL is just like the bus & truck body builder / coach furnisher.

We've all seen Tata & Ashok Leyland bare skeleton Chassis being ferried all over India that local body builders furnish with body & seating. Anthony & Ruby are two such major body builders for Mumbai BEST buses. Gives the impression that the bus is actually built by Anthony or Ruby, when actually its Tata or Ashok Leyland. The engine is Japanese Hino.

http://www.rubybus.co.in/company_profile.html
http://www.antonyasia.com/

MDL is no different than these companies. It gives the impression that it is building the ship when its just giving the skin.

Sad part is over all these years, it never bothered to build skills over & above building the shell.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 01 Oct 2013 23:12

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:I will tell you what I told Maz. MDL has only structual works in ships and submarines. Rest is done by other contractors and agencies, which are causing delays. MDL is not be be blamed. Every instance, they have finished the structure and other sections ahead of time.


That's precisely the problem, CJ. MDL is just like the bus & truck body builder / coach furnisher.

We've all seen Tata & Ashok Leyland bare skeleton Chassis being ferried all over India that local body builders furnish with body & seating. Anthony & Ruby are two such major body builders for Mumbai BEST buses. Gives the impression that the bus is actually built by Anthony or Ruby, when actually its Tata or Ashok Leyland. The engine is Japanese Hino.

http://www.rubybus.co.in/company_profile.html
http://www.antonyasia.com/

MDL is no different than these companies. It gives the impression that it is building the ship when its just giving the skin.

Sad part is over all these years, it never bothered to build skills over & above building the shell.


So why then do they have a big problem with private players entering war ship building ? are they afraid they themselves will be obsolete :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2013 02:21

MDL is sh*t scared of L&T and Pipapav.It has effectively sabotaged independent warship/sub construction by both yards,a few crumbs thrown at them.L&T which is making hulls for our N-subs is quite capable of building them,both nuclear and conventional,but the dog-in-the-manger attitude of MDL which is scared to lose orders in future ,despite the fact that it is years behind in deliveries of both subs (Scorpenes) and warships (Kols),thanks to babudom rules supreme.The snails pace at which AKA takes decisions adds to the frustration of the services.He too has time running out for him s the UPA-2's innings comes to an end.He can either end with a flourish or continue to play "dot balls"!

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2166
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 02 Oct 2013 03:34

From DefenseNews: India To Require BrahMos Missile for Next Subs

NEW DELHI — Western competitors could face stiffer competition from the Russians in India’s forthcoming US $12 billion tender for the purchase of six conventional submarines. The Indian Defence Ministry is requiring that submarines in the competition be capable of mounting the Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missile.

India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation, which is jointly producing the BrahMos with Russia, has persuaded the MoD to incorporate the requirement for the tender, expected to be floated by the end of the year.

DCNS of France, Navantia of Spain and HDW of Germany will offer their submarines in the competition. The Russians, meanwhile, told the Indian Navy this month that their Amur-class submarines could accommodate the BrahMos missile with little modification.

No executive from DCNS, Navantia or HDW would comment on their boats’ ability to carry the missile.

India is finalizing a formal tender to purchase six advanced conventional submarines with air-independent propulsion technology.

The six submarines are to be purchased within the limitations of the Missile Technology Control Regime, which restricts the proliferation of missiles capable of flying beyond 300 kilometers, an MoD official said.

BahMos is homemade and has a range of less than 300 kilometers, which would be best suited for the submarine, the MoD source said.

The submarines are to have a surface speed of 12 knots and submerged speed of 19 knots. They will have a range of 50 to 60 days of navigation on the surface and 20 to 30 days of navigation submerged at 4 knots.

Two of the six submarines are to be made in the overseas shipyard and the remaining four are slotted to be license-produced only in a state-owned shipyard.

The major fire on the Russian-made Sindhurakshak last month has dropped the operational strength of the Indian Navy submarines to only 11. With the decommissioning of the aging German HDW-class submarines next year, the Indian Navy’s total submarine strength could fall to as low as seven by 2015. The fact that the Indian Navy’s submarine fleet size has dropped so low is a point of major concern in the ranks, especially since China’s sub fleet is more than 60, an official said.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pragnya » 02 Oct 2013 03:51

^^^

to me the project 75I looks like a 'done deal' with the russians - possibly Amur 1650 with mods to accommadate Brahmos. remember the whole plan for subs was - project 75 (western), project 75I (Russian) and the amalagamation of techs from both to be incorporated in an indian sub to be planned in the future.

that apart Russia will not allow any other sub other than Russian to be equipped with Brahmos which the IN wants and russians will also sweeten/condition the deal by an offer of more leases of Akulas etc..

besides this also might keep Russians 'quiet' considering they have made 'noises' - of India leaning too much on the US at 'their' expense!!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63150
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 02 Oct 2013 07:42

with no proven AIP, how exactly is this Amur+brahmos combo going to threaten anyone on land, barring TSP against whom we can just fire from land.

south china sea will be swarming with chinese ASW units led by their new LPD ships & helicopters. even their reef squatting gunboats and modded fishing boats will be dipping bamboos in the water and listening intently for vibrations

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17260
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RamaY » 02 Oct 2013 07:47

^ I would read this Brahmos capable Subs new item with this
viewtopic.php?p=1516170#p1516170

Are the planning to increase Brahmos range significantly?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2013 08:12

The AIP model is a relevant and moot Q.There has been some details about two Russian routes for AIP.One a fuel cell version and the other a new kind of system which obviates the need for a conventional AIP system.It is universally acknowledged Brahmos is superior to any existing non-Russian anti-ship missile in current service. The USN even rates the Klub missile with its mach 3 terminal homing warhead as very difficult to defend against.The Brahmos 8 cell launcher has already been perfected for use on our Talwars and Rajputs.The same has been designed for Russian conventional subs like the Amur,also available in two sizes.What will be the killer factor of any Russian offer apart from BMos,will be its price and speed of construction.If the foll. report is accurate,then extended endurance will also not be a problem.

Russian subs aim for 'quiet spying'
New hydrogen-fueled propulsion system being installed

Published: 11/11/2012
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/russian-subs ... hVtg3Tc.99

WASHINGTON – Using what can be termed a new, old submarine technology, the Russians have developed a hydrogen-fueled power plant for submarines that not only could be a substitute for nuclear-powered energy sources, but will give emerging countries such as Iran a submarine capable of remaining submerged for longer periods and extend its blue water capability, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The new Russian submarine is called the B-90 Sarov, which is really a test sub using a hydrogen-fueled power plant which would be similar to German submarines U-212 and U-214.

The advantage to this technology is that some of Russia’s traditional diesel-electric subs use batteries to supply the electric motor. When the battery needs to be recharged, the submarine must surface and start diesel engines to recharge the batteries. This makes the submarine vulnerable. With hydrogen-fueled engines, the electric motors are supplied by hydrogen fuel cells.

This new Russian engine is what is referred to as “air-independent propulsion,” which increases the submarine’s submersible time, is quieter and could compete with the German diesel submarines, some of which Israel possesses.

Fuel cells are electrochemical conversion devices that combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, electricity and heat. They’re already in use in some automotive and space applications.

While slow, AIP submarines will be useful for their long-endurance and quietness. They will not become the primary form of propulsion to either diesel or nuclear power. Yet, they will be good for coastal defense and littoral regions, especially in smaller submarines.

Dr. Edward C. Whitman, science editor of Undersea Warfare Magazine, sees fuel cells possibly doubling or tripling their capabilities in the next few years, which will give greater tactical flexibility due to their small size and inherent stealth nature.

“The novel operational paradigms (that) AIP submarines introduce to undersea warfare will make these new boats a dangerous threat to submariners accustomed to nuclear – or conventionally diesel-powered adversaries,” Whitman said. “The submarine force needs to understand this threat – where it’s been, where it’s going, what it means, and how to counter it.”

Smaller navies are expected to stay with diesel-electric submarines for their coastal defenses and AIP technologies used to power those submarines will become more popular as their technologies improve.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/russian-subs ... hVtg3Tc.99


http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... -deal.html

It is considered an outsider in the race to bag the Indian navy's contract for a new generation, long endurance conventional submarine but Russia maintains it is a strong contender as it will soon have the Air Independent Propulsion.
It was the lack of the AIP, which drastically increases the capability of a submarine to stay underwater by reducing dependence on compressed oxygen to burn fuel, that was seen as a disadvantage to Russia's participation in the navy's Project 75I to procure six new generation conventional submarines. Conventional submarines can stay underwater for a few days but those equipped with AIP can stay submerged for more than three weeks, giving the operator advantage in terms of stealthy operations and sneak attacks.

Russian designers said the system will be ready by 2016 and may even be fitted on Russian vessels by 2018. "The AIP is no longer a stumbling block to our participation in the P 75I," Andrey Baranov, deputy director general of the Rubin Design Bureau, said. "We will have a prototype of the system ready and in place by 2016."

Russia has offered to help the DRDO develop an indigenous version of the AIP, Baranov said and stressed that India was unlikely to find other partners who would share such critical technology.

"The main difference between our system and others in the world is that we do not store hydrogen onboard but generate it. We also use standard diesel that the submarine has," Rubin Design Bureau chief designer Igor Molchanov said. This, he said, makes the Russian AIP stealthier than the French and frees it of the need for shore-based hydrogen generating facilities which are required by the German system.

Both the French DCNS and the German HDW are strong competitors for the P 75I contract, which will be one of the largest global tenders in terms of money. There has, however, been delay in floating a tender though the decision to procure the submarines — to restore India's edge in underwater operations in the region —was taken years ago.

The correspondent is in Russia at the invitation of the United Shipbuilding Corp.

Russia says in race to bag mega sub deal - Indian Express


Here's a report on the underwater duel to take place, posted earlier by Austin from the "F" mag:

http://www.russiadefence.net/t1692-lada ... evelopment

Deep Sea Quest
A case for Russia’s Amur submarine for Indian Navy’s P-75I programme

By Vladimir ‘Vovick’ Karnozov

Moscow: Three recent developments may help the Russians win the ongoing international competition for the Project 75(I): the Russian Navy’s commissioning of the Saint Petersburg, big domestic orders placed with the nation’s largest submarine builder — Sevmash and preparations for underwater trials of the BrahMos cruise missile.
In the middle of 2010, Indian defence minister A.K. Antony gave approval for the Project 75(I), calling for procurement of six conventional (non-nuclear) submarines for USD 10.7 billion. While two vessels are to be constructed in the collaborator country, the remaining four are scheduled to be built in India, under license.
According to the defence procurement practices, suitable companies from major exporting countries were invited to bid. They were forwarded Request for Information (RFI) in the second half of 2010 and the

request for proposal (RFP) is expected in the middle of 2012. If things move on time, the results are expected by 2014, and the delivery of the first vessel by 2016-2017.
Four contenders — Rosoboronexport of Russia, Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft (HDW) of Germany, DCNS of France and Navantia of Spain — are offering Amur 1650, Type 214, Scorpene and S-80 respectively. According to the RFI, circle of possible options was confined to those designs that were based on prototypes in existence.

The Russian Navy operates the Saint Petersburg, head vessel of the Project 677 design, codenamed Lada. The Amur 1650 is the latter’s export derivative. The German Navy operates Type 212 U-boats, from which the Type 214 was derived for export purposes. The French Navy operates only nuclear-powered submarines, but DCNS has already delivered a pair of Scorpene submarines to Chile, another pair to Malaysia and is supplying six to India under license-production contract with Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL). Navantia’s product does not meet the above requirement, but this may change soon as the Spanish Navy takes delivery of its first S-80, now under construction some time in 2013-2015.

The Indian Navy operates four Shishumar class submarines of the German Type 209 and 10 Russian-built Project 877EKM attributed to the Sindhughosh class. It use to have eight older Russian submarines, but the last of those, the INS Vagli, retired in 2011 after 36 years of service. Of the existing fleet, only four submarines are expected to remain operational in 2020 and none in 2025.

India has plans for 24 new non-nuclear submarines, of which, 12 shall be built locally and 12 by the collaborator. In 2003-2005, France won the order for six Scorpene class submarines worth over USD four billion. These are being constructed locally at MDL in Mumbai. Sadly, the construction process has been going slower than originally envisioned.

Meanwhile, India is also developing its nuclear submarine called Advanced Technology Vehicle, with the head vessel, Arihant nearly ready for sea trials. Besides, under a special deal between Kremlin and New Delhi, the Indian Navy is going to operate, under lease terms, a Project 971 submarine. The ship Nerpa, with tactical number K-152, is undergoing acceptance trials. Upon the completion of the trials, she will go south and serve there as INS Chakra. The Indian Navy may have as many as five or six nuclear-powered submarines in 2020. This would be a big development, but the need for modern conventional submarines will remain.

Face-Off

Germany, France and Russia have been competing for submarine orders round the world for decades. In this respect, each of the three has its strong and weak points. Broadly speaking, the West Europeans are considered better at air-independent propulsion (AIP) technologies in non-nuclear vessels. The Germans claim their Type 212 can move submerged at speed of three knots for nearly 14 days. This is made possible through the use of 300kWt AIP, based on fuel elements, and the use of stored oxygen.

The Russian submarines have better chances in a duel situation. In this respect, the current production Project 636 (06363) is pictured as prevailing over the contemporary German and French designs. The newer Amur 1650 is even better, due to more powerful acoustic system, lesser noise and lower displacement (1,765t against 2,350t).

As an added bonus, the Russian submarines can be equipped with Club-S missile system from Novator, an export version of the Caliber on the Russian Navy ships. The Club-S can fire three types of missiles, the anti-ship 3M-54, the anti-submarine 91R and the land-strike 3M-14. Today, such missilery is available only from Russia. In the course of modernisation and upgrade, Indian Navy’s Project 877EKM submarines have been obtaining the Club-S.

It is interesting to note that certain countries with reputation as capable submarine builders are not bidding in India, this time. At one point, there were speculations that the S-1000 was being offered. This is a Russian design made under contract by Fincantieri of Italy, as an inexpensive ‘no-frills’ submarine, with displacement of 1,000 tons, intended mostly for coastal protection. Respective development contract was signed in 2004 and fulfilled shortly afterwards. However, neither the S-1000, nor its completely Russian equivalent Amur 950, is on offer to India.

Swedish Kockums company is working on the A26 with 1,900 ton displacement, after building a series of three Gotland 1,500 ton submarines. The Gotland features Sterling-type AIP with underwater time up to 20 days. Australia operates six similar Collins class submarines produced in 1996-2003, while Singapore will soon be taking a pair of 1,500-tonne Archer submarines after they were rebuilt in Sweden. It is believed that after HDW took control over Kockums in 2004, it has the right to control the latter’s export operations. And, HDW chose to reply to the Indian RFI with the Type 214 offer.



Starting in 1998, HDW has been supplying Type 212 U-boats to German and Italian navies with eight deliveries, so far. The exportable Type 214 is larger, with displacement of 1,960t against 1,450t. So far, nine deliveries have been made to Portugal, Republic of Korea and Greece.

Early sale success was somewhat marred by media reports about numerous design deficiencies. The U-boats tended to be unstable when surfaced, especially in strong winds, their AIPs produced lower output and overheated. There were reports of water leaking into hydraulics, periscope vibrations, cavitation, which decreased the propeller’s efficiency, and certain onboard sensors worked unstably. In 2010-2011, the RoK Navy reportedly withdrew submarines from active service temporarily for repairs, as nearly 30 cases of loosing bolts were discovered on three vessels.
The fairly advanced and innovative design of Type 212/214 at the turn of the century, could not escape the inevitable teething problems. However, most of them are believed to have been cured by now, and the German product is widely considered front-runner in the ongoing completion.

The S-80 is the largest of the four competing designs with 2,400t displacement. Worldwide economic crisis and the problems in the Euro zone postponed completion of the first Spanish Navy vessel from 2011 to 2013, and then over to 2015. Herein lies its weakest point. The S-80 is a very advanced submarine featuring an all-new but untried AIP solution, with a bio-ethanol processor of hydrogen. The S-80 has a combat management system from Lockheed Martin. While, this insures high quality, such advanced systems of US origin come with restrictions on access to their codes, algorithms and software package.

France has already won Indian order for six Scorpene vessels. Increasing the numbers to 12 may be beneficial to local partner MDL. France does not operate Scorpene for itself, but Portugal and Malaysia operate them in a simplified 1,500-t version without AIP. KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Razak completed in 2009, for the Malaysian Navy, reportedly had problems when getting submerged. Contract worth over Euro two billion raised concerns in the country, with claims made against certain government members. Adding to DCNS’ troubles were charges of corruption.

DCNS has produced unique type of AIP called MESMA (Module d’Energie Sous-Marin Autonome). MESMA makes use of a steam turbine. Steam is generated by combustion of ethanol and oxygen stored under pressure of 60 atmospheres. There is only one submarine actually outfitted with MESMA, the Pakistan Navy’s third hull of the Agosta 90B class. The S137 Hanza differs from her sister ships in having displacement of 2,050 tons against 1,760, and comes equipped with a 200kW MESMA. Reportedly, she did not manage to develop the advertised four knots, her actual speed falling one knot behind the promise.

Naturally, use of compact steam turbines predetermines relatively low efficiency, in range of 15-26 per cent compared to 42-46 per cent for the German AIP
solution and 50-55 per cent for the Russian. The latter two centre on use of fuel cells and electrochemical generators and have power output in the region of 300-350 kW, just enough to make three-four knots under water.

BrahMos

BrahMos Aerospace under the leadership of Dr Sivathanu Pillai is a joint venture between India and Russia. The company develops the PJ-10 supersonic cruise missile able to strike at stationary and moving surface targets, such as warships. Based on the Russian systems known under names of the Onix, Alfa and Yakhont, the PJ-10 has a launch weight of four tons. If a decision to use the BrahMos missiles on the Project 75(I) ships is taken, the resulting submarine will appear to have a stretched hull, to house one more compartment amidships. This one will house a number of vertical launch containers. Models of the Amur 1650 exhibited at international show how this will be done.

There could be varied reasons to integrate BrahMos in the existing European hulls, but it seems to be a difficult proposition. For instance, the Germans keep reservoirs for hydrogen storage in the upper part of the hull just aft of the conning tower.
Besides, it is not about simply making a stretch to accommodate one more hull section — the effort also requires combat management and other systems to serve the missiles and insure their effective employment in wartime. Of the three European bidders, only France has experience of launching missiles vertically from under water depths.

The Russians can smoothly integrate the BrahMos on their ships, as they have a rich experience in vertical launches and, more importantly, invented the BrahMos itself as a derivative of the Onix system, in use on Russian submarines.
Russian weaknesses are chiefly aftermaths of the system crisis in their defence industrial complex that developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meeting offset requirements is particularly an issue. Negotiations on the matter of offset need active participation of Russia’s integrated structures such as the United Shipbuilding Corporation (OSK) and Russian Technologies State Corporation.

Options and Possibilities

India may choose to buy more submarines from abroad in addition to acquisitions under the Projects 75 and 75(I). This may involve more Project 971 ships and, perhaps, the Project 636 as well. The latter has been popular with China, which added six improved ships in 2004-2006 to a pair acquired in 1997-1998. Besides, China has commenced building copies known as the Yuan class. Algeria took two vessels in 2009 and Vietnam signed for six. Last year, the Admiralty Shipyards in St Petersburg laid down the Novorossiysk and the Rostov-upon-Don for the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet. The local customer has ordered four more improved Project 636 (06363) vessels.

The Project 636 was on offer in India sometime ago. This time, however, the Russians responded to the new Indian RFI with the more modern Amur 1650. The decision was influenced by the Russian Navy commander’s order dated 6 May 2010, on inclusion of the St Petersburg, the head vessel of Project 677, into inventory of the Baltic Sea Fleet, supplemented by ritual hoisting of the Russian Navy flag.

Development of the Lada commenced in the middle of Eighties. It was meant to be a sort of interceptor, able to defeat US fast-attack submarines, operating off Russian coasts which were trying to detect and then shadow Russian strategic nuclear submarines on deterrent patrols. For this purpose, the Project 677 was made quieter and smaller than its predecessor Project 636, yet equipped with much more powerful acoustic sensors.

At the turn of the century, the Admiralty Shipyards laid down two series hulls, the Kronshtadt and the Sevastopol for the Russian Navy, and a third for export. In November, Rubin chief engineer Igor Vilnit told the media: “Construction of these vessels for the navy goes on in accordance with respective Russian government orders. Meantime, the head vessel, the St Petersburg, is undergoing modernisation and overhauling work in preparations of her operational trials in northern waters, according to the plans of the Russian defence ministry and the navy.”
The Admiralty Shipyards reports that the series hulls are 40 per cent and 10 per cent complete respectively, while the export hull is ready for outfitting with systems. This creates good foundations for fulfilling would-be foreign orders, should overseas customers buy the Amur 1650.

n 2011, the Sevmash company (also referred to as SMP) declared its intent to built diesel-electric submarines along with the Admiralty Shipyards. Sevmash specialises in nuclear-powered submarines, with 128 units having been built in Severodvinsk so far, following commissioning of the K-3 in 1958. The company says that, without slowing down construction of nuclear-powered submarines for the Russian Navy, it can produce at least one diesel-electric submarine for export customers annually.

This statement comes along with another one: Sevmash and its patron OSK are talking to the Russian defence ministry on construction of three to four improved Project 636 submarines for the Russian Navy. Initially, the customer wanted to take six units from the Admiralty Shipyards, but latter was booked to capacity with previous orders, including that from the Vietnamese Navy. The builder is moving out of St Petersburg city to a new site on the island of Kotlin.

The importance of Sevmash is that, it adds considerably to the Russian export capabilities, especially in terms of production quality, and fulfilling industrial offset requirements. With workforce of 27,000, it is not only the largest shipbuilder in Russia, but also the best equipped and financially stable.

In November 2011, the Russian defence ministry awarded OSK and Sevmash orders for construction of four Project 955A Borey-A strategic nuclear submarines, in addition to three Project 955 Boreys, already built in Severodvinsk. The customer had ordered five Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear fast-attack submarines, in addition to the head vessel, now under sea trials. The exact sum of these contracts has not been made public but it is known that the Alexander Nevsky, a second Borey-class vessel, was build under contract worth Rouble 23 billion, which equates to USD 0.75 billion.

Lada Goes Through its Paces

Five years of the St Petersburg’s operational trials have highlighted issues that need to be resolved before the Project 677 goes into full scale production. It is a standard Russian practice that head vessel of a brand-new type goes through vigorous testing before permission is given for full scale production. For instance, a previous generation Russian design had a 4-year operational trails period on two ships during which the navy made nearly 30 major and half-a-thousand minor claims, and these were subsequently addressed and resolved by the industry before launching the type into quantity production.

Since entering service, St Petersburg sailed Baltic waters regularly every year, for trials and working out war tactics. Work on preparations of improved design for the Russian Navy is proceeding well, in view of the completion date of 2013.
In relation to the Project 75(I) competition, AIP is the hottest issue. By the time the Indian tender committee comes to the selection process of the most suitable supplier, work on shaping Amur 1650’s AIP would be complete. Due to huge investments in new technologies in the Soviet times, the Russian scientists have amassed large experience in fuel cells, and have tried them on submarines and spacecraft, and more recently, on unmanned air vehicles.

The Amur 1650 is offered with AIP that employs fuel cells and reforming of diesel fuel for hydrogen by means of electro chemical generator. This solution permits to escape the need of storing hydrogen onboard submarines, as the Germans do, and rather generate it, as necessary. This eases issues with coastal infrastructure and crew safety.

Experimental unit is under bench trials, and is available for inspection by Indian specialists. Next step in the programme is construction of AIP full-scale prototype. This work is being done by Rubin under the company’s initiative, in reply to requests of potential foreign customers.

It is interesting to notice that unlike certain Europeans, the Russian Navy is not interested in AIP. As a result, no R&D work is being pursued in relation to Project 677. The Russian thinking is that underwater time can better be enlarged by increased capacity of accumulator batteries. The classic acid batteries are giving way to newer ion-lithium. As of now, the St Petersburg is equipped with a classic battery, but in future, it will be replaced by ion-lithium, when latter gets available. It is expected that the Amur-1650 with ion-lithium batteries can get a two fold increase in underwater time – from 9 days currently up to 16, which is comparable to the current levels of German U-boats with AIP. What may happen is that Indian specialists working on the RFP to the Project 75(I) would finally drop their early requirement for AIP and rather specify underwater time and other parameters of autonomous operations.

Duel Situation

Another example illustrating difference in Russian and European approaches is a duel scenario. Starting from the Project 641B, the Soviet (and then Russian) thinking was focussed on lowering acoustic fields so that diesel-electric submarines could be effectively employed on defence of naval bases and coastal waters against US fast-attack submarines, seeking to shadow Russian strategic nuclear submarines. The Soviet Union invested heavily in powerful acoustic sensors that would enable its submarines to detect enemy ships at greater distances, and allow for timely execution of evasive manoeuvres or first-see-first-strike sort of action.

Acoustic signature can be decreased by means of employing electrical motors on permanent magnets. The Russians and the Germans went that way, brining to life, motors like Siemens Permasyn on Type 212/214, a unitary engine for ‘creeping’ towards target, economic cruise and full speed. This has been a new direction in conventional submarine development, which met numerous difficulties. Higher-than-advertised noised levels were reported for RoK and Helenic navy vessels. In turn, the Russians managed to achieve noise levels, but still worked on their SED-1 motor, trying to make it deliver the full advertised power. During sea trials of St Petersburg, underwater speed tended to increase, but it is still some two-three knots below specification.

The Project 677 features state-of-the-art Lira acoustic detection system from Elektropribor company, complete with huge quasi-conformal antennae. As a result, the Saint Petersburg fared better in simulated duels with previous-generation submarines. The Lira has demonstrated stable work in Baltic waters but still needs checking in deeper ocean waters. Following completion of the Saint Petersburg modernisation and repairs, the ship will go to the Arctic for testing purposes in 2012.

During public discussions on future of the Russian Naval forces in the time when the Russian Navy was choosing between the improved Project 636 and Project 677, to equip the Black Sea Fleet, lots of information became available on results of Saint Petersburg testing. This included making public certain facts about her teething problems such as that with SED-1. Bits of that information have been skilfully used by interested parties in a campaign against the newer Russian project, seemingly in an effort to decrease its chances in the global marketplace. Competition in the Project 75(I) tender is expected to be hot, and in many ways, decisive of the future of Russian non-nuclear submarines.

(The writer is a Russian journalist based in Moscow)


While quietness and AIP endurance are moot points reg. the Amur,in terms of firepower they have no equal,as the sub can carry Brahmos,Kulb variants as well as Shkval suepr cavitating torpedoes.If fitted with the advanced sonars mentioned,they could even give N-subs a hard time in littoral ops.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1794
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 02 Oct 2013 08:33

Indian Navy LPD to feature electric propulsion, upbeat on DRDO Fuel Cell AIP

http://frontierindia.net/indian-navy-ldp-to-feature-electric-propulsion-upbeat-on-drdo-fuel-cell-aip#ixzz2gX3F6PBw

Rear Admiral DM Deshpande, VSM, DG Project – 75 (Scorpenes) Naval Head Quarters, who spoke about electric propulsion for future Indian submarines, described the Navy – DRDO fuel cell system, which was progressing. He named 10 companies involved in the AIP project led by L&T at NMRL ( Naval Materials Research Laboratory ) Ambarnath. The ten companies involved in Indian AIP propulsion design include Thermax, IOCL, L&T, Texol, Indian Institute of Petroleum, AKSA, CDAC, Gigitronics, ROLTA and MDL. DRDO units involved in the project are NMRL, CEEFES, NSTL, RCI and NPOL.

The Hydrogen based Indian AIP design has no Carbon Dioxide (unique to French MESMA) emission. The waste products are stored in a separate container in slurry form. Since there are no emissions into the water, there are less chances of the submarine being detected. In addition to upcoming Project 75 (I) submarines, DRDO AIP can also be deployed in existing HDW T-1500 submarines (Shishumar Class) in Indian Navy service.

And from a December 2010 Article
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/d ... 016372.ece

With the Navy

“We are working in tandem with the Navy as we don't have any other customer for the project. It will be ready in four to five years from now. The technology development is going on, and at an appropriate time, we will start marinisation and engineering for submarine quality. We are going to have industrial partners with us... Whatever we install will be on an operational submarine,” Mr. Das said.

Safety ensured

Explaining the technologies available for improving the sub-surface endurance of conventional submarines, he said the AIP being developed by the DRDO also ensured a higher level of safety to the submarine.

In our technology, we generate hydrogen online on an as-needed basis. If you need more hydrogen when you are going fast, you produce more hydrogen and if you need less hydrogen, you produce less of it. The policy is ‘do not store hydrogen on board,' which ensures a higher level of safety to the platform. Also, we use fuel cells of a different type — phosphoric acid fuel cells — as they can tolerate slightly impure hydrogen. This is because when you produce hydrogen on board, you cannot have very pure hydrogen whereas other companies making fuel cell-based AIP are using PEM (proton exchange membrane) fuel cell, which necessitates hydrogen to be of ‘five-nines' quality, meaning 99.999 percent pure,” he said.

Good to see that the Russians are following the Indian model.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7835
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 02 Oct 2013 09:41

If the tech works as promiced, then, it will revolutionise the world energy market. The potential for civillian economy is enormous.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 776
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nash » 02 Oct 2013 10:18

will it be like fully Fuel cell AIP powered electric submarine and LPD or ususal diesel-electric combo for submarine? :-?

Anyway, fully electric power is the future because hydrocarbons will be finished in approx 30 years.Also, spin-off of these technologies can be use in civilian purposes as our country is hydrocarbon starved state.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2013 17:44

The IN should embark upon several research programmes apart from the regular requirements.There was a report some time ago avbout a desi UUV.Here's a look at what the Iranians are developing.

Iran said to be developing unmanned submarines

Robert Tilford GroundReport | Author: Robert Tilford
10/02/2013

Unmanned robotic submarine developed by grad students using a variety of materials including non metallic PVC pipe (source: http://pvc-innovation.wonderhowto.com/i ... ne-0130636).

FARS news agency is reporting that Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced on Tuesday that Iran plans to build “unmanned submarines to protect the country’s territorial waters.”

“This issue is on our agenda like other issues and cases,” Sayyari told FNA when asked if the Iranian Navy has plans to build unmanned submarines and other types of unmanned underwater vehicles.

He didn’t provide any further details on the project (source: Fars news agency “Commander: Iranian Navy plans on building drone subs” http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.as ... 0709000785).

“Unmanned submarines pose a very serious threat to the U.S. military”, according to one Pentagon source who refused to be identified for fear of retaliation or commenting to unauthorized new sources.

This source went on to explain that “Iran (and Russia in particular)has made significant advancement in the are of quite diesel engine technology, that makes such submarines hard to identify or hear underwater.”

You also have the problem of unmanned enemy subs sneaking into U.S. coastal areas and/or remotely detonating themselves in commercial shipping lanes.

In addition unmanned submarines can park themselves at the bottom of the ocean and sit undetected for long periods of time and spring to life just long enough to take out or engage a billion dollar air craft carriers cruising by with a torpedo launch.

“Size is also a problem in terms of unmanned enemy subs”, the source said. “Which can come in a varieties of sizes already from 3-5 ft long to 30 feet long.”

He pointed out that DARPA (the “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency” http://www.darpa.mil/) has been “developing unmanned drone subs for years now.”

“Incorporate stealth technology in the mix and you could have a real problem on your hand even being able to identify such a threat in the first place”, he said.

Unmanned subs could also be used potentially in a variety of surveillance operations against the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf.

We also contacted the United States Navy for comment on this story and officials refused to do so, citing the fact that we were a “unapproved news source.”

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 02 Oct 2013 17:49

nash wrote:will it be like fully Fuel cell AIP powered electric submarine and LPD or ususal diesel-electric combo for submarine? :-?

Anyway, fully electric power is the future because hydrocarbons will be finished in approx 30 years.Also, spin-off of these technologies can be use in civilian purposes as our country is hydrocarbon starved state.


AIP - Diesel combo

electric propulsion is what IN exploring for ships.

Steam power has changed and is much more efficient, it is also in consideration for future.


pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pankajs » 02 Oct 2013 18:45

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/nl/2013/NL_ ... 13_web.pdf

Defence Technology Absorption Award

M/s Thermax , Pune, for successfully absorbing phosphoric acid fuel cell stack production technology developed by NMRL in a record short span of time.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pankajs » 02 Oct 2013 18:54

DRDO's Autonomous Underwater Vehicle in sea trials
August 21, 2013: The indigenous autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) under development by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is currently in sea trials, where it is reported to be functioning close to 100-metres below the surface in the Bay of Bengal. The AUV is being built to function at depths close to 300-metres. The platform is being developed in close coordination with IIT, Madras, which supplies much of the software and command algorithm matrices that guide the AUV under water.

With the Electronics Corporation India Ltd (ECIL) as an engineering partner, DRDO's Naval Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL) in Visakhapatnam is also trying to develop a variant of the AUV that can conduct more frontline activity like mine-laying. The AUV will have passive sonar and electro-optical sensors. The DRDO AUV will be deployable and controllable from shore and ship, depending on the mission. In July 2010, the Navy announced its interest in acquiring 10 AUVs developed and built fully in India. It is keen on flexibility for variable payloads like high definition sonars and underwater cameras for surveillance reconnaissance activities of the sea bed, including oceanographic survey and specialised mapping. With preliminary testing near completion, the DRDO may consider asking the government to consider the AUV a major project, with attendant funding and budgetary support.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pankajs » 02 Oct 2013 19:08

Older article > 1 year

India takes giant leap in autonomous sea vehicle programme for security
As the Navy contemplates indigenously sourcing 10 such platforms primarily for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), mine mitigation and sensor deployment, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has come a long way in designing and building a batch of multiple AUVs to meet the Navy’s quality requirements.

The Visakhapatnam-based Naval Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), a DRDO firm, has fashioned a batch of AUVs from handheld slow-speed ones, to military-class, free-flooded platforms weighing 1.7 tonnes, with the capability to assist in the entire gamut of maritime security, straddling coastal and port defence to deep-sea operations.

“The 1.7-tonne reconfigurable platform, with an operational depth of 500 metres, can carry payloads of up to 500 kg to accomplish a plethora of operations such as surveillance, sensor deployment, and mine countermeasure, besides delivery of ammunition. It is slated to undergo a fresh set of sea trials in September.

Meanwhile, the NSTL’s ambitious programme ‘Autonomous Sea Vehicle’ (ASV), on the lines of the US Navy’s ‘Manta Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’ programme seeks to build much larger AUVs — behemoths weighing more than 12 tonnes — in course of time,” sources told The Hindu .


The under-trial AUV, built as a technology demonstrator, can act as a courier between submarines and surface vessels or controls. Vehicles of the class can also be used for target firing practice during naval exercises.

“In AUV development, predictability [in behaviour] and controllability are important. They will take men out of dangerous and monotonous underwater missions… Specifically, the 1.7-tonne AUV has a ‘flat fish’ hydrodynamic shape that makes it highly flexible and versatile. It can hover at zero-speed. Developed from a concept vehicle weighing 300 kg, the AUV has two interconnected cylindrical pressure hulls. Its multi-sensor intelligence robotic architecture provides for underwater monitoring and communication. Since the thrusters are inside the pressure hulls, vibration is next to nil.

Vehicle deployment is done by a ship-independent launch and recovery system developed by R&D Engineers, Pune, another DRDO lab,” said sources.

Part of a host of sub-systems and technologies being perfected for the tech-intensive programme is an AUV docking system for recharging batteries.

In-house technologies already available with the NSTL, such as Mission Computer System (MCS), Integrated Instrumentation and Recording System (IIRS), Power Management System (PMS), and electrical systems, were adopted for the development of the AUV. It is productionised by the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL).

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 02 Oct 2013 23:45

Philip wrote:The AIP model is a relevant and moot Q.There has been some details about two Russian routes for AIP.One a fuel cell version and the other a new kind of system which obviates the need for a conventional AIP system.It is universally acknowledged Brahmos is superior to any existing non-Russian anti-ship missile in current service. The USN even rates the Klub missile with its mach 3 terminal homing warhead as very difficult to defend against.The Brahmos 8 cell launcher has already been perfected for use on our Talwars and Rajputs.The same has been designed for Russian conventional subs like the Amur,also available in two sizes.What will be the killer factor of any Russian offer apart from BMos,will be its price and speed of construction.If the foll. report is accurate,then extended endurance will also not be a problem.

Russian subs aim for 'quiet spying'
New hydrogen-fueled propulsion system being installed

Published: 11/11/2012
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/russian-subs ... hVtg3Tc.99

WASHINGTON – Using what can be termed a new, old submarine technology, the Russians have developed a hydrogen-fueled power plant for submarines that not only could be a substitute for nuclear-powered energy sources, but will give emerging countries such as Iran a submarine capable of remaining submerged for longer periods and extend its blue water capability, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The new Russian submarine is called the B-90 Sarov, which is really a test sub using a hydrogen-fueled power plant which would be similar to German submarines U-212 and U-214.

The advantage to this technology is that some of Russia’s traditional diesel-electric subs use batteries to supply the electric motor. When the battery needs to be recharged, the submarine must surface and start diesel engines to recharge the batteries. This makes the submarine vulnerable. With hydrogen-fueled engines, the electric motors are supplied by hydrogen fuel cells.

This new Russian engine is what is referred to as “air-independent propulsion,” which increases the submarine’s submersible time, is quieter and could compete with the German diesel submarines, some of which Israel possesses.

Fuel cells are electrochemical conversion devices that combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, electricity and heat. They’re already in use in some automotive and space applications.

While slow, AIP submarines will be useful for their long-endurance and quietness. They will not become the primary form of propulsion to either diesel or nuclear power. Yet, they will be good for coastal defense and littoral regions, especially in smaller submarines.

Dr. Edward C. Whitman, science editor of Undersea Warfare Magazine, sees fuel cells possibly doubling or tripling their capabilities in the next few years, which will give greater tactical flexibility due to their small size and inherent stealth nature.

“The novel operational paradigms (that) AIP submarines introduce to undersea warfare will make these new boats a dangerous threat to submariners accustomed to nuclear – or conventionally diesel-powered adversaries,” Whitman said. “The submarine force needs to understand this threat – where it’s been, where it’s going, what it means, and how to counter it.”

Smaller navies are expected to stay with diesel-electric submarines for their coastal defenses and AIP technologies used to power those submarines will become more popular as their technologies improve.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/russian-subs ... hVtg3Tc.99


http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... -deal.html

It is considered an outsider in the race to bag the Indian navy's contract for a new generation, long endurance conventional submarine but Russia maintains it is a strong contender as it will soon have the Air Independent Propulsion.
It was the lack of the AIP, which drastically increases the capability of a submarine to stay underwater by reducing dependence on compressed oxygen to burn fuel, that was seen as a disadvantage to Russia's participation in the navy's Project 75I to procure six new generation conventional submarines. Conventional submarines can stay underwater for a few days but those equipped with AIP can stay submerged for more than three weeks, giving the operator advantage in terms of stealthy operations and sneak attacks.

Russian designers said the system will be ready by 2016 and may even be fitted on Russian vessels by 2018. "The AIP is no longer a stumbling block to our participation in the P 75I," Andrey Baranov, deputy director general of the Rubin Design Bureau, said. "We will have a prototype of the system ready and in place by 2016."

Russia has offered to help the DRDO develop an indigenous version of the AIP, Baranov said and stressed that India was unlikely to find other partners who would share such critical technology.

"The main difference between our system and others in the world is that we do not store hydrogen onboard but generate it. We also use standard diesel that the submarine has," Rubin Design Bureau chief designer Igor Molchanov said. This, he said, makes the Russian AIP stealthier than the French and frees it of the need for shore-based hydrogen generating facilities which are required by the German system.

Both the French DCNS and the German HDW are strong competitors for the P 75I contract, which will be one of the largest global tenders in terms of money. There has, however, been delay in floating a tender though the decision to procure the submarines — to restore India's edge in underwater operations in the region —was taken years ago.

The correspondent is in Russia at the invitation of the United Shipbuilding Corp.

Russia says in race to bag mega sub deal - Indian Express


Here's a report on the underwater duel to take place, posted earlier by Austin from the "F" mag:

http://www.russiadefence.net/t1692-lada ... evelopment

Deep Sea Quest
A case for Russia’s Amur submarine for Indian Navy’s P-75I programme

By Vladimir ‘Vovick’ Karnozov

Moscow: Three recent developments may help the Russians win the ongoing international competition for the Project 75(I): the Russian Navy’s commissioning of the Saint Petersburg, big domestic orders placed with the nation’s largest submarine builder — Sevmash and preparations for underwater trials of the BrahMos cruise missile.
In the middle of 2010, Indian defence minister A.K. Antony gave approval for the Project 75(I), calling for procurement of six conventional (non-nuclear) submarines for USD 10.7 billion. While two vessels are to be constructed in the collaborator country, the remaining four are scheduled to be built in India, under license.
According to the defence procurement practices, suitable companies from major exporting countries were invited to bid. They were forwarded Request for Information (RFI) in the second half of 2010 and the

request for proposal (RFP) is expected in the middle of 2012. If things move on time, the results are expected by 2014, and the delivery of the first vessel by 2016-2017.
Four contenders — Rosoboronexport of Russia, Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft (HDW) of Germany, DCNS of France and Navantia of Spain — are offering Amur 1650, Type 214, Scorpene and S-80 respectively. According to the RFI, circle of possible options was confined to those designs that were based on prototypes in existence.

The Russian Navy operates the Saint Petersburg, head vessel of the Project 677 design, codenamed Lada. The Amur 1650 is the latter’s export derivative. The German Navy operates Type 212 U-boats, from which the Type 214 was derived for export purposes. The French Navy operates only nuclear-powered submarines, but DCNS has already delivered a pair of Scorpene submarines to Chile, another pair to Malaysia and is supplying six to India under license-production contract with Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL). Navantia’s product does not meet the above requirement, but this may change soon as the Spanish Navy takes delivery of its first S-80, now under construction some time in 2013-2015.

The Indian Navy operates four Shishumar class submarines of the German Type 209 and 10 Russian-built Project 877EKM attributed to the Sindhughosh class. It use to have eight older Russian submarines, but the last of those, the INS Vagli, retired in 2011 after 36 years of service. Of the existing fleet, only four submarines are expected to remain operational in 2020 and none in 2025.

India has plans for 24 new non-nuclear submarines, of which, 12 shall be built locally and 12 by the collaborator. In 2003-2005, France won the order for six Scorpene class submarines worth over USD four billion. These are being constructed locally at MDL in Mumbai. Sadly, the construction process has been going slower than originally envisioned.

Meanwhile, India is also developing its nuclear submarine called Advanced Technology Vehicle, with the head vessel, Arihant nearly ready for sea trials. Besides, under a special deal between Kremlin and New Delhi, the Indian Navy is going to operate, under lease terms, a Project 971 submarine. The ship Nerpa, with tactical number K-152, is undergoing acceptance trials. Upon the completion of the trials, she will go south and serve there as INS Chakra. The Indian Navy may have as many as five or six nuclear-powered submarines in 2020. This would be a big development, but the need for modern conventional submarines will remain.

Face-Off

Germany, France and Russia have been competing for submarine orders round the world for decades. In this respect, each of the three has its strong and weak points. Broadly speaking, the West Europeans are considered better at air-independent propulsion (AIP) technologies in non-nuclear vessels. The Germans claim their Type 212 can move submerged at speed of three knots for nearly 14 days. This is made possible through the use of 300kWt AIP, based on fuel elements, and the use of stored oxygen.

The Russian submarines have better chances in a duel situation. In this respect, the current production Project 636 (06363) is pictured as prevailing over the contemporary German and French designs. The newer Amur 1650 is even better, due to more powerful acoustic system, lesser noise and lower displacement (1,765t against 2,350t).

As an added bonus, the Russian submarines can be equipped with Club-S missile system from Novator, an export version of the Caliber on the Russian Navy ships. The Club-S can fire three types of missiles, the anti-ship 3M-54, the anti-submarine 91R and the land-strike 3M-14. Today, such missilery is available only from Russia. In the course of modernisation and upgrade, Indian Navy’s Project 877EKM submarines have been obtaining the Club-S.

It is interesting to note that certain countries with reputation as capable submarine builders are not bidding in India, this time. At one point, there were speculations that the S-1000 was being offered. This is a Russian design made under contract by Fincantieri of Italy, as an inexpensive ‘no-frills’ submarine, with displacement of 1,000 tons, intended mostly for coastal protection. Respective development contract was signed in 2004 and fulfilled shortly afterwards. However, neither the S-1000, nor its completely Russian equivalent Amur 950, is on offer to India.

Swedish Kockums company is working on the A26 with 1,900 ton displacement, after building a series of three Gotland 1,500 ton submarines. The Gotland features Sterling-type AIP with underwater time up to 20 days. Australia operates six similar Collins class submarines produced in 1996-2003, while Singapore will soon be taking a pair of 1,500-tonne Archer submarines after they were rebuilt in Sweden. It is believed that after HDW took control over Kockums in 2004, it has the right to control the latter’s export operations. And, HDW chose to reply to the Indian RFI with the Type 214 offer.



Starting in 1998, HDW has been supplying Type 212 U-boats to German and Italian navies with eight deliveries, so far. The exportable Type 214 is larger, with displacement of 1,960t against 1,450t. So far, nine deliveries have been made to Portugal, Republic of Korea and Greece.

Early sale success was somewhat marred by media reports about numerous design deficiencies. The U-boats tended to be unstable when surfaced, especially in strong winds, their AIPs produced lower output and overheated. There were reports of water leaking into hydraulics, periscope vibrations, cavitation, which decreased the propeller’s efficiency, and certain onboard sensors worked unstably. In 2010-2011, the RoK Navy reportedly withdrew submarines from active service temporarily for repairs, as nearly 30 cases of loosing bolts were discovered on three vessels.
The fairly advanced and innovative design of Type 212/214 at the turn of the century, could not escape the inevitable teething problems. However, most of them are believed to have been cured by now, and the German product is widely considered front-runner in the ongoing completion.

The S-80 is the largest of the four competing designs with 2,400t displacement. Worldwide economic crisis and the problems in the Euro zone postponed completion of the first Spanish Navy vessel from 2011 to 2013, and then over to 2015. Herein lies its weakest point. The S-80 is a very advanced submarine featuring an all-new but untried AIP solution, with a bio-ethanol processor of hydrogen. The S-80 has a combat management system from Lockheed Martin. While, this insures high quality, such advanced systems of US origin come with restrictions on access to their codes, algorithms and software package.

France has already won Indian order for six Scorpene vessels. Increasing the numbers to 12 may be beneficial to local partner MDL. France does not operate Scorpene for itself, but Portugal and Malaysia operate them in a simplified 1,500-t version without AIP. KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Razak completed in 2009, for the Malaysian Navy, reportedly had problems when getting submerged. Contract worth over Euro two billion raised concerns in the country, with claims made against certain government members. Adding to DCNS’ troubles were charges of corruption.

DCNS has produced unique type of AIP called MESMA (Module d’Energie Sous-Marin Autonome). MESMA makes use of a steam turbine. Steam is generated by combustion of ethanol and oxygen stored under pressure of 60 atmospheres. There is only one submarine actually outfitted with MESMA, the Pakistan Navy’s third hull of the Agosta 90B class. The S137 Hanza differs from her sister ships in having displacement of 2,050 tons against 1,760, and comes equipped with a 200kW MESMA. Reportedly, she did not manage to develop the advertised four knots, her actual speed falling one knot behind the promise.

Naturally, use of compact steam turbines predetermines relatively low efficiency, in range of 15-26 per cent compared to 42-46 per cent for the German AIP
solution and 50-55 per cent for the Russian. The latter two centre on use of fuel cells and electrochemical generators and have power output in the region of 300-350 kW, just enough to make three-four knots under water.

BrahMos

BrahMos Aerospace under the leadership of Dr Sivathanu Pillai is a joint venture between India and Russia. The company develops the PJ-10 supersonic cruise missile able to strike at stationary and moving surface targets, such as warships. Based on the Russian systems known under names of the Onix, Alfa and Yakhont, the PJ-10 has a launch weight of four tons. If a decision to use the BrahMos missiles on the Project 75(I) ships is taken, the resulting submarine will appear to have a stretched hull, to house one more compartment amidships. This one will house a number of vertical launch containers. Models of the Amur 1650 exhibited at international show how this will be done.

There could be varied reasons to integrate BrahMos in the existing European hulls, but it seems to be a difficult proposition. For instance, the Germans keep reservoirs for hydrogen storage in the upper part of the hull just aft of the conning tower.
Besides, it is not about simply making a stretch to accommodate one more hull section — the effort also requires combat management and other systems to serve the missiles and insure their effective employment in wartime. Of the three European bidders, only France has experience of launching missiles vertically from under water depths.

The Russians can smoothly integrate the BrahMos on their ships, as they have a rich experience in vertical launches and, more importantly, invented the BrahMos itself as a derivative of the Onix system, in use on Russian submarines.
Russian weaknesses are chiefly aftermaths of the system crisis in their defence industrial complex that developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meeting offset requirements is particularly an issue. Negotiations on the matter of offset need active participation of Russia’s integrated structures such as the United Shipbuilding Corporation (OSK) and Russian Technologies State Corporation.

Options and Possibilities

India may choose to buy more submarines from abroad in addition to acquisitions under the Projects 75 and 75(I). This may involve more Project 971 ships and, perhaps, the Project 636 as well. The latter has been popular with China, which added six improved ships in 2004-2006 to a pair acquired in 1997-1998. Besides, China has commenced building copies known as the Yuan class. Algeria took two vessels in 2009 and Vietnam signed for six. Last year, the Admiralty Shipyards in St Petersburg laid down the Novorossiysk and the Rostov-upon-Don for the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet. The local customer has ordered four more improved Project 636 (06363) vessels.

The Project 636 was on offer in India sometime ago. This time, however, the Russians responded to the new Indian RFI with the more modern Amur 1650. The decision was influenced by the Russian Navy commander’s order dated 6 May 2010, on inclusion of the St Petersburg, the head vessel of Project 677, into inventory of the Baltic Sea Fleet, supplemented by ritual hoisting of the Russian Navy flag.

Development of the Lada commenced in the middle of Eighties. It was meant to be a sort of interceptor, able to defeat US fast-attack submarines, operating off Russian coasts which were trying to detect and then shadow Russian strategic nuclear submarines on deterrent patrols. For this purpose, the Project 677 was made quieter and smaller than its predecessor Project 636, yet equipped with much more powerful acoustic sensors.

At the turn of the century, the Admiralty Shipyards laid down two series hulls, the Kronshtadt and the Sevastopol for the Russian Navy, and a third for export. In November, Rubin chief engineer Igor Vilnit told the media: “Construction of these vessels for the navy goes on in accordance with respective Russian government orders. Meantime, the head vessel, the St Petersburg, is undergoing modernisation and overhauling work in preparations of her operational trials in northern waters, according to the plans of the Russian defence ministry and the navy.”
The Admiralty Shipyards reports that the series hulls are 40 per cent and 10 per cent complete respectively, while the export hull is ready for outfitting with systems. This creates good foundations for fulfilling would-be foreign orders, should overseas customers buy the Amur 1650.

n 2011, the Sevmash company (also referred to as SMP) declared its intent to built diesel-electric submarines along with the Admiralty Shipyards. Sevmash specialises in nuclear-powered submarines, with 128 units having been built in Severodvinsk so far, following commissioning of the K-3 in 1958. The company says that, without slowing down construction of nuclear-powered submarines for the Russian Navy, it can produce at least one diesel-electric submarine for export customers annually.

This statement comes along with another one: Sevmash and its patron OSK are talking to the Russian defence ministry on construction of three to four improved Project 636 submarines for the Russian Navy. Initially, the customer wanted to take six units from the Admiralty Shipyards, but latter was booked to capacity with previous orders, including that from the Vietnamese Navy. The builder is moving out of St Petersburg city to a new site on the island of Kotlin.

The importance of Sevmash is that, it adds considerably to the Russian export capabilities, especially in terms of production quality, and fulfilling industrial offset requirements. With workforce of 27,000, it is not only the largest shipbuilder in Russia, but also the best equipped and financially stable.

In November 2011, the Russian defence ministry awarded OSK and Sevmash orders for construction of four Project 955A Borey-A strategic nuclear submarines, in addition to three Project 955 Boreys, already built in Severodvinsk. The customer had ordered five Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear fast-attack submarines, in addition to the head vessel, now under sea trials. The exact sum of these contracts has not been made public but it is known that the Alexander Nevsky, a second Borey-class vessel, was build under contract worth Rouble 23 billion, which equates to USD 0.75 billion.

Lada Goes Through its Paces

Five years of the St Petersburg’s operational trials have highlighted issues that need to be resolved before the Project 677 goes into full scale production. It is a standard Russian practice that head vessel of a brand-new type goes through vigorous testing before permission is given for full scale production. For instance, a previous generation Russian design had a 4-year operational trails period on two ships during which the navy made nearly 30 major and half-a-thousand minor claims, and these were subsequently addressed and resolved by the industry before launching the type into quantity production.

Since entering service, St Petersburg sailed Baltic waters regularly every year, for trials and working out war tactics. Work on preparations of improved design for the Russian Navy is proceeding well, in view of the completion date of 2013.
In relation to the Project 75(I) competition, AIP is the hottest issue. By the time the Indian tender committee comes to the selection process of the most suitable supplier, work on shaping Amur 1650’s AIP would be complete. Due to huge investments in new technologies in the Soviet times, the Russian scientists have amassed large experience in fuel cells, and have tried them on submarines and spacecraft, and more recently, on unmanned air vehicles.

The Amur 1650 is offered with AIP that employs fuel cells and reforming of diesel fuel for hydrogen by means of electro chemical generator. This solution permits to escape the need of storing hydrogen onboard submarines, as the Germans do, and rather generate it, as necessary. This eases issues with coastal infrastructure and crew safety.

Experimental unit is under bench trials, and is available for inspection by Indian specialists. Next step in the programme is construction of AIP full-scale prototype. This work is being done by Rubin under the company’s initiative, in reply to requests of potential foreign customers.

It is interesting to notice that unlike certain Europeans, the Russian Navy is not interested in AIP. As a result, no R&D work is being pursued in relation to Project 677. The Russian thinking is that underwater time can better be enlarged by increased capacity of accumulator batteries. The classic acid batteries are giving way to newer ion-lithium. As of now, the St Petersburg is equipped with a classic battery, but in future, it will be replaced by ion-lithium, when latter gets available. It is expected that the Amur-1650 with ion-lithium batteries can get a two fold increase in underwater time – from 9 days currently up to 16, which is comparable to the current levels of German U-boats with AIP. What may happen is that Indian specialists working on the RFP to the Project 75(I) would finally drop their early requirement for AIP and rather specify underwater time and other parameters of autonomous operations.

Duel Situation

Another example illustrating difference in Russian and European approaches is a duel scenario. Starting from the Project 641B, the Soviet (and then Russian) thinking was focussed on lowering acoustic fields so that diesel-electric submarines could be effectively employed on defence of naval bases and coastal waters against US fast-attack submarines, seeking to shadow Russian strategic nuclear submarines. The Soviet Union invested heavily in powerful acoustic sensors that would enable its submarines to detect enemy ships at greater distances, and allow for timely execution of evasive manoeuvres or first-see-first-strike sort of action.

Acoustic signature can be decreased by means of employing electrical motors on permanent magnets. The Russians and the Germans went that way, brining to life, motors like Siemens Permasyn on Type 212/214, a unitary engine for ‘creeping’ towards target, economic cruise and full speed. This has been a new direction in conventional submarine development, which met numerous difficulties. Higher-than-advertised noised levels were reported for RoK and Helenic navy vessels. In turn, the Russians managed to achieve noise levels, but still worked on their SED-1 motor, trying to make it deliver the full advertised power. During sea trials of St Petersburg, underwater speed tended to increase, but it is still some two-three knots below specification.

The Project 677 features state-of-the-art Lira acoustic detection system from Elektropribor company, complete with huge quasi-conformal antennae. As a result, the Saint Petersburg fared better in simulated duels with previous-generation submarines. The Lira has demonstrated stable work in Baltic waters but still needs checking in deeper ocean waters. Following completion of the Saint Petersburg modernisation and repairs, the ship will go to the Arctic for testing purposes in 2012.

During public discussions on future of the Russian Naval forces in the time when the Russian Navy was choosing between the improved Project 636 and Project 677, to equip the Black Sea Fleet, lots of information became available on results of Saint Petersburg testing. This included making public certain facts about her teething problems such as that with SED-1. Bits of that information have been skilfully used by interested parties in a campaign against the newer Russian project, seemingly in an effort to decrease its chances in the global marketplace. Competition in the Project 75(I) tender is expected to be hot, and in many ways, decisive of the future of Russian non-nuclear submarines.

(The writer is a Russian journalist based in Moscow)


While quietness and AIP endurance are moot points reg. the Amur,in terms of firepower they have no equal,as the sub can carry Brahmos,Kulb variants as well as Shkval suepr cavitating torpedoes.If fitted with the advanced sonars mentioned,they could even give N-subs a hard time in littoral ops.


Let us compare how many submarines are in actual service : Amur xyzw, HDW Typw 209/212/214/216, Kilo 677, Kilo 636, DCNS Scorpene etc. Also let us see how many AIP systems are operating.

Russians have been talking about a AIP system "almost ready" for almost a decade. Perhaps they just want some Indian moolah to complete the project

K

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arijitkm » 03 Oct 2013 09:10

Govt drags feet on anti-submarine chopper deal by Rajat Pandit, TNN

Chinese and other submarines are fast stepping up their forays into the Indian Ocean region (IOR) but India continues to drag its feet in acquiring advanced helicopters that operate from warships to detect, track and kill such underwater predators.

The irony is that while the Navy is on track to induct four-five major warships every year over the next decade, with as many as 40 ships already on order in domestic shipyards, the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters to provide them with "close-in protection" are nowhere in sight.

The Navy currently has just 11 Kamov-28 and 17 Sea King ASW helicopters to defend its existing fleet of over 130 warships from enemy submarines on the prowl silently. While the Sea Kings are over 20 years old, the Kamov-28s are long overdue for a mid-life upgrade.

With only half of these aging helicopters operationally available at any given time, alarms bells have begun to clang loudly at this "critical operational gap" in the IOR which is getting "dense with foreign submarines", say sources.

The Navy is already grappling with a crippling shortage in missiles to arm the Israeli Barak-I anti-missile defence systems on its 14 frontline warships, including aircraft carrier INS Viraat, due to a seven-year-old CBI probe into kickbacks in the original contract.

"It's like a double-whammy. The protective shield around the warships is fast eroding," said a source. The ASW helicopters fly ahead of warships to "dunk" their sonars in the "tropical waters" of IOR to depths like 200-300 metres, listen for underwater electronic and other signals of submarines, track and then eliminate threats to "sanitize" the path for the fleet.

It has being almost a decade since the Navy initiated a case to acquire 16 new multi-role helicopters with potent ASW capabilities. But it's yet to fructify due to the government's slow decision-making process, coupled with squabbling between contenders European NH-90 and American Sikorsky-70B helicopters.

This contract is crucial since it is to be followed by a bigger deal for 123 helicopters — in the 9 to 12.5-tonne class with ASW capabilities as well as customized for amphibious assaults and commando operations — at a cost of over $3 billion.

The abysmal situation can be gauged from the fact that even aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, the rechristened Admiral Gorshkov slated for commissioning in mid-November after a $2.33 billion refit in Russia, has no ASW helicopters earmarked for it till now. "A carrier battle group requires at least 8 to 10 ASW helicopters," said a source.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63150
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 03 Oct 2013 09:54

till date the only in-service AIP systems seem to be
- MESMA (with TSP onlee)
- swedish Stirling system now owned by HDW (on Soryu and sweden gotland class)
- siemens PEM system on U212 and U214

thats the complete list I think.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests