Indian Naval Discussion

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 02 Feb 2012 08:55


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2012 16:56

ot disinformation.Latest reports indicate just that,though current statements talk about using base facilties on vists,mil. exercises,etc.,so as to keep local feathers unruffled.


So, it is disinformation.

As usual you first say:

The US is looking for a new basing agreement with Manila


Then it becomes "facilties on vists"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, your own posts clearly state that the US is not looking for bases.

Do you have a URL for the WashPost news article that you can post here? TIA.

Asking for bases is a very serious matter - specially in that region and at this point in time. One should not take talking about it very lightly.

Anyways, I guess I will have to overlook your posts in the future.

BR is certainly getting diluted.

On India seeking a base IMHO that window has gone by. Unless India intends to escalate - which I do not see it happening any longer - Indian bases in that region are over. The only option to India is the good old 1000 ship navy. But, I doubt that will happen too.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2012 17:03

NR,with respect, take a look at the BBC/WP's report,

The Washington Post on Wednesday reported that officials were possibly in the early stages of negotiating the return of US bases to the country, "the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China".


While the earlier reports I posted ....and reiterated that they were earlier reports,whhch gave out clarifications that "no bases" were being intended,it appears that behind the scenes this is the very strategy that is being pursued by both nations given the threat from the PRC ! The camel has to get its nose into the tent first.....

You are quite welcome to ignore my posts in the future and dilute your information ...(sorry,you term it "dis-information" ) boundary.That is your supreme perogative.Enjpy yourself!

Pl.chk. into this informative interview with the Zvyozdochka Centre General Director Vladimir Nikitin speaking about the history of and Indo-Russian sub cooperation and further prospects.X-posted from the ATV thread.

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/01/tw ... 14685.html

Quote:
But most of these resources are meant for the repair and upgrade of submarines, aren’t they?

INS Sindhuvir: medium repair performed in 1997 –1999.
INS Sindhuratna: medium repair and modernisation, including installation of a Club-S missile system, performed in 2000–2002.
INS Sindhugosh: medium repair and modernisation, including installation of a Club-S missile system and Indian-made systems (Ushus hydro-acoustic system, CCS communications system and Sirs radiation monitoring system), performed in 2002–2005.
INS Sundhuvijay: medium repair and modernisation, including installation of a Club-S missile system and Indian- and foreign-made systems (Ushus hydro-acoustic system, CCS communications system and Sirs radiation monitoring unit, Porpoise radar, MCA external antenna, York cooling machines, Sulzer high pressure air compressors), performed in 2005–2008.
Since August 2010, Zvyozdochka has been carrying out medium repair and modernisation of INS Sindhurakshak.

True. In 1999, we handed over to India the first foreign ship – INS Sindhuvir – after a medium overhaul. In 2002, Zvyozdochka brought INS Sindhuratna, a diesel-electric submarine, back into service. It was on that ship that the shipyard completed the pilot project to install a Club-S missile system. Three years later, INS Sindhugosh sailed from Severodvinsk to its native shores. That ship was the first to feature Indian-made systems – the Ushus hydro-acoustic unit and the CCS communications system, in addition to the Club-S missile system. INS Sundhuvijay, delivered to the customer in 2008, featured an even broader array of Indian-made systems. Whereas, on INS Sindhuvir, we assembled only one such system, INS Sindhurakshak, which is currently undergoing repairs, twelve Indian systems are being installed. Each new contract for repairs to these submarines attests to the increasing self-sustainability of Indian shipbuilding and we are endeavouring to assist our partners in their efforts as far as possible. We are well aware that the strengthening of Indian submarine forces is our common cause.

As for the current status, Zvyozdochka is working on the interim overhaul and upgrade of a fifth Kilo class Indian submarine – INS Sindhurakshak. The ship arrived in August 2010. The submarine will feature the Club-S missile complex and Ushus hydro-acoustic system. Zvyozdochka will modernise the submarine’s cooling systems, install a CCS-MK-II communications system and a Porpoise radar installation and will conduct other operations.

Zvyozdochka is the primary contractor for modernisation of five Kilo class submarines, involving installation of a Club-S missile system and an Apassionata-EKM.1 integrated navigation system. These operations are performed by our specialists in India, where the ships are based.

Since 2003, we have fulfilled dozens of contracts for delivery of spare parts, tools and accessories, equipment and materials for maintenance of ships and repair of submarines at Indian shipyards, and many contracts are underway.

On the basis of what you have said, Zvyozdochka is apparently working very hard on the Indian market. What are the prospects for your further cooperation with the Indian Navy?

I am certain that the vast experience we have accumulated with our partners in repairing Kilo class submarines must be used to develop the Indian submarine fleet further. Zvyozdochka is ready to repair and upgrade the next submarine – INS Sindhushastra – fast and to the most rigorous quality standards. The service life of this submarine questions the feasibility of interim overhaul. We have already submitted a relevant proposal to the Indian side. We believe that placing an order with Zvyozdochka is the best option for the Indian Navy to maintain the preparedness of the Indian submarine forces. This decision by the Indian side would logically complete the cycle of first plant repairs of Indian Kilo class submarines. Zvyozdochka is also interested in carrying out second plant repairs of these submarines to extend their service life.

India possesses a considerable Kilo submarine task force. A reasonable approach to repairs and modernisation might keep these submarines in service for at least thirty-five years, securing their military characteristics and high combat qualities. The Indian side will gain valuable experience in operating the ships beyond their designed service life and will apply it to ships of other projects. Zvyozdochka is the only Russian shipyard experienced in carrying out medium repairs of submarines to extend their service life. We have developed and introduced administrative and technical arrangements to extend the lives of Russian submarines. These measures, if properly adapted, could be applied to Indian submarines. Zvyozdochka is ready to transfer to its main foreign partner its experience in taking submarines beyond their designed lifespan by using technologies to monitor the technical status of equipment and the ship as a whole, including by means of nondestructive inspection techniques.

If the Indian Navy accepts our proposals regarding second interim repairs to Kilo class submarines, it will be able to maintain the combat readiness of its submarine task force for a long time, while incurring relatively low expenses.

Zvyozdochka is currently the only contractor providing engineering supervision and service maintenance for more than three hundred Russian Navy ships. I presume that our Indian partners will be interested in our experience accumulated during this work. We have already submitted our proposals concerning creation of a system of after-sales and service maintenance of ships to the Indian Navy Command.

Zvyozdochka will naturally continue its activities on the Indian market and expand the range of spare parts, tools and accessories, as well as other military and technical services, delivered to Indian customers. The Republic of India and its navy are our crucial partners and it is on India that we are focusing our primary efforts. Starting with the first Indian ship we accepted for repair, the company has engaged its best-qualified engineers and workers on these projects, wherever the operations are carried out – in Severodvinsk or in India, at the local base.

Our long-term partnership with the Indian Navy and its further promotion call for close cooperation, so we are working on setting up an office of Zvyozdochka Ship Repair Centre in India.

At the beginning of the interview, you mentioned not only business contacts but also friendly relations with the Indian partners…

When we repair a submarine in Severodvinsk, there are from fifty to three hundred Indian citizens here. Some of them work here all the time; others come here for short visits. These are officers and civilians working in the observation group, crew members and assembly and setting specialists working with the Indian systems, together with their wives and children. The children attend kindergartens and schools, study with Russian children, and participate in extracurricular activities – sports and art clubs in our science and technology centre. The adults actively participate in cultural and sporting events along with the city residents. Last summer, an agreement on cooperation in the social and cultural spheres was signed between the crews of Indian ships and the municipal authorities. The ceremony was attended by the Indian Ambassador to Russia Mr Ajai Malhotra. We are doing our best to make our Indian friends feel at home in Russia in every respect. Unfortunately, we cannot control our hard winters but we try to offset these climatic difficulties using the warmth of our hearts and traditional Russian hospitality.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Feb 2012 04:36

This post was made by Philip who is currently on your ignore list.


Sorry. Nothing personal. We will have to live with that. Just moving on. All the best.

Thx.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 03 Feb 2012 06:42

This is the best time for us to be there in Philippines. And the base be for the Indian Navy. The relationship with Philippines be strengthened and taken to a very high level.


Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 05 Feb 2012 03:43

Vipul wrote:Vikramaditya sea trials to begin in May.

The Indian Navy's Vikramaditya aircraft carrier .....

While the Navy was keen to take control of the warship before Navy Day in December this year, sources reveal that February 2013 is the rough new timeframe when Vikramaditya will be in Indian hands -- more than 9 years after Russia agreed to transfer the ship to India following a refit and refurbishment.


This Gorky fiasco should really have been avoided. We would have been better off if we had given that USD2.2 Billion to Italy to build a super Cavour for us (identical to IAC-1). It would have been in service by now and the two IACs would be sharing parts and thus reduced life-cycle costs.
Last edited by Nick_S on 05 Feb 2012 08:26, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Feb 2012 04:17

Nick_S wrote:
Vipul wrote:Vikramaditya sea trials to begin in May.

The Indian Navy's Vikramaditya aircraft carrier .....

While the Navy was keen to take control of the warship before Navy Day in December this year, sources reveal that February 2013 is the rough new timeframe when Vikramaditya will be in Indian hands -- more than 9 years after Russia agreed to transfer the ship to India following a refit and refurbishment.


This Gorky fiasco should really have been avoided. We would have been better off if we have given that USD2.2 Billion to Italy to build a super Cavour for us (identical to IAC-1). It would have been in service by now and the two IACs would be sharing parts and thus reduced life-cycle costs.


Chap you have discounted the Indian capability to "MKIzation" of tin cans? Amazing. :eek:


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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2012 09:40

we have learnt our lesson . we will hopefully not repeat the mistake. for large systems of untold complexity like a aircraft carrier that too built in Ukraine but now refurbished in russia, there is no option but to avoid and pay more to get a new one like CavourMKI or CVF-mki

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Christopher Sidor » 05 Feb 2012 09:41

^^^
What is the latest news on the Naval variant of MMRCA?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Feb 2012 10:29

Have to disagree here. The Vikad is a good deal so far - problem lay in the idea that it could be gotten in double quick time - lots of underestimation by both sides. The Cavour would have taken just as long if not longer. Its not as if the IN would've just bought one of the shelf - there would have been plenty of tinkering to bring it to IN standards with a decent fighter wing.

The VIkad is pretty much new inside/out, and quite capable. $ 3.2 billion including 16 MiG-29s + 6 Kamov AEWs is still a deal to beat. The a/c component on the Cavour alone would've prolly cost $ 3.2 million (btw, what birds would operate off the Cavour?) and the whole deal would've been no less than $ 5+ billion. And knowing how slowly the MOD works, they would have just signed the deal in 2015!

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2012 11:57


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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2012 12:03

the ADS1 is taking a long time because we had to setup the shipyard, delays in steel (Rus could not supply the 20,000t and ultimately SAIL did)....if we had given the contract to Ficantieri to build in Italy it would have been much further ahead than AG for sure...infact i am sure it would have been delivered by now.
we could operate the same Mig29K type off the Cavour-mki as indeed the ADS1 will.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Feb 2012 12:13

^Possibly, but not necessarily.The Cavour would have to be redesigned to include a STOBAR ski jump. And the Oiropeans are always expensive when it comes to such things. I'd wager a good $ 1 billion extra at least. The Cavour cost around $ 2.5 billion, after fixing if for STOBAR ops, lets say a good $ 3.5 billion. Assuming that the GOI was willing to go with such a sticker, I doubt a deal would have been signed by the GOI in 2004. My guess is that they would have "negotiated" for another 5 years to come close to signing and then signed off at an incredibly expensive $ 5 billion for the ship, what with cost escalations et al.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby merlin » 05 Feb 2012 12:41



I agree with the Navy chiefs statement. If ADA/DRDO treat the one service that strongly supports Indian capabilities so badly then IN needs to scrap plans for the Naval LCA and go with Mig-29Ks and/or Rafales.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2012 12:47

perhaps the IN should explore just getting the IAF version as a ground based naval air arm. the IAF's sole commitment on a dedicated basis to the Navy is 12 Jaguar-IM based on pune with the aeging sea eagle missile.

how about IN gets itself 60 Tejas with harpoon missiles and ofcourse much better at a2a. 20 can be kept in the west for TSP and 40 posted in rameswaram , andamans for maritime strike duty with a single harpoon on the centerline, 2 big drop tanks and 2 aams.

the limitations on payload and range for the N-LCA render it a impractical prospect when our carriers are small and all that are carried must be the best for the size. that way the Rafale-M makes the best sense, followed by the Mig29K.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Feb 2012 14:30

The Cavour was just too small and useful to us only if we had new STOVL aircraft like JSF's, whatever.There just isn't enough space for a full complement of strike,air defence,and ASW helo assets along with a carrier on board AEW aircraft or helo.We need a carrier with a min. of 40 aircraft/helos/UAVs.The two 40/45.000t Gorky and IAC-1 will suffice until 2010 when we will need larger sized carriers to meet more challenging missions and aircraft/UCAVs with stealth and longer endurance capabilities.

Tx Austin for that report on the new sub tech.The SoKo mini-subs are what the doctor prescribed for the IN too.Ideal for patrolling the A&N islands and Malacca Sts. chokepoint and for underwater equiv. to the missile boats of '71 that devastated Karachi.They would be exceptionally quiet and lethal.Remember how the Japanese in WW2 took their midget subs all the way to Pearl Harbour.Here's a report on the type.

This midget sub find has been described as the most significant modern marine archeological find ever in the Pacific, second only to the finding of the Titanic in the Atlantic. The Japanese midget sub was one of five attached to five I-class mother submarines and brought from Japan to be launched 5-6 hours before the aerial attack, within a few miles of Pearl Harbor. Each had a crew of two. The subs were battery powered , 78 feet long , 6 feet in diameter and weighed 46 tons. They carried two torpedoes and a scuttling charge to avoid capture. Although experimental in design, they were very advanced for the time. For short periods, they could run at 20 knots. These midget submarines were completed only months before the attack allowing little time for the crews to train. All of the five submarines comprising the advanced attack force were sunk or captured. The type A midget submarines had a series of basic design problems including trim and ballast control and problems both with battery life and battery monitoring. Later redesign, as five man midget submarines of the Koryu class, addressed but did not solve these problems. The Japanese midget submarines although believed at the time to be a potent secret weapon, in actual fact, were never highly effective. So far four of the five original midget submarines attacking Pearl Harbor have been found.
History


Though they did not succeed,one new report has it that one mini/midget sub fired its torpedoes which struck a US battleship and helped sink it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_Ko- ... _submarine

In 2009, a research team assembled by PBS Nova positively identified the remains of a midget sub found outside the Pearl Harbor entrance as being the last of the 5 Ko-Hyoteki that participated in the December 7, 1941, attack. It was discovered in salvage from the wreckage of the West Loch Disaster of 1944, dumped three miles south of Pearl Harbor. Secret war records show that submarine crews had been ordered to scuttle their subs after the attack and provisions were made to recover stranded crews. It is believed the fifth sub successfully entered Pearl, fired on Battleship Row, and escaped to the relative quiet of neighbouring West Loch, where it was scuttled by the crew. When a series of explosions sank an amphibious fleet being assembled in the Loch in 1944, the remains of the sub were collected and dumped in the subsequent salvage operation, which was kept classified as secret until 1960. The torpedo tubes in the bow section were empty, indicating that the fifth midget had fired its torpedoes prior to being scuttled. A photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the Pearl Harbor attack appears to show a midget submarine inside the harbor firing torpedoes at Battleship Row. This new evidence suggests that the capsizing of the USS Oklahoma may have been accelerated by a torpedo hit from a submarine-launched torpedo, the warhead of which was roughly twice the power of that carried by the air-dropped torpedoes. A war time report from Admiral Nimitz confirmed the recovery of dud torpedoes of the type employed by the midget submarines.[8] This discovery is covered in PBS Nova television program Killer Subs in Pearl Harbor[9] and companion website, I-16tou.com.[10]


Amazingly,the role of Japanese midget/mini subs in WW2,with raids on Pearl Harbour,Sydney and even at the "Battle of Madagascar" ,in the IOR,has had rather scarce attention as most of the subs were detected and sunk/scuttled by their crew.In the battle of Madagascar,the role of the subs were a major success,just torpedoes two fired badly damaging the battleship Ramillies and sinking a small tanker..

On the 29 May 1942, the Japanese submarines I-10, I-16 and I-20 arrived on Madagascar. I-10's reconnaissance plane spotted Revenge-class battleship HMS Ramillies at anchor in Diego Suarez harbor but the plane was spotted and Ramillies changed her berth. I-20 and I-16 launched two midget submarines, one of which managed to enter the harbor and fired two torpedoes while under depth charge attack from two corvettes. One torpedo seriously damaged Ramillies, while the second sank the 6,993 ton oil tanker British Loyalty (later refloated). Ramillies was later repaired in Durban and Plymouth.


The IN needs a separate mini/midget sub squadron or two of about 12-16 such subs,which though small,will provide the numbers required and "fill in the gaps" very effectively .Their cost too for the entire lot will probably be that of just two or three conventional subs.Their small size will make then especially difficult to detect and be excellent for surveillance and defence of our major ports and naval bases,as well as the roles that they have played in history.

vipins
BRFite
Posts: 449
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 17:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vipins » 05 Feb 2012 17:08

abhishekm wrote:Sorry- didn't know where else to post this, but INS Vikrant is open to the public again tomorrow (Saturday, January 28, 2012). I believe entry is through Tiger Gate. Nearest rail link- Churchgate Station. Get down and either take a bus or a cab.

Thanks for the info... had a great time on Vikrant. Got few pics also..
Also saw few ships and subs at dock...not sure if its a good idea to name them here?

PICS

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 05 Feb 2012 17:24

27 below zero Celsius

Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12156
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Feb 2012 18:50

How many midget subs do the Pakis have?.

Can midget subs be attached to mother ships , loiter and Join Back?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2012 19:05

only if the mother sub is the size of a Oscar. normally they operate on their own, there is a diff between frogmen on 'chariots' attaching limpet mines and proper midget subs that can fire torpedos and have considerable range.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /mg110.htm

Cosmos Class MG110
The Naval Special Services Group (SSGN), numbering 1,000 marines, is responsible for conducting unconventional operations at sea and along the shoreline. Delivery or insertion of maritime special forces includes fixed- wing/helicopter low-level parachuting, light craft beaching and underwater conveyance, for which the navy operates at least three Cosmos Class MG110 miniature submarines (SSI) and some swimmer- delivery vehicles.

On the basis of design developed by PN Dockyard, this type of mini submarine has been constructed at PN Dockyard. These mini-submarines can be used for various purposes like attacking enemy units in harbour with Frogmen/Charriots, at sea with torpedoes, at shore installations by commandos etc. other uses include mine laying, defensive barrier in shallow waters, advance pickets duties, intelligence gathering etc.

Although the Italian Navy pioneered the use of human torpedoes (known today as swimmer delivery vehicles or SDVs), in today's Italian Navy there are no midgets. However Cosmos of Livorno has sold a number of midgets abroad. The SX 404 type sold to Pakistan in the early 1970s have been replaced by three [or possibly four] Italian-built SX-756-class midget submarines, delivered in 1988. These displace 40 tons and are capable of diving to a depth of 100m. They can carry six swimmers and two SDVs, as well as 2 tons of explosives.

X-Craft 908 P/A as Shallow Water Attack Submarine(SWAS) is used to carryout mine laying torpedo attack, frogman operations and commando landing. The contract of these mini submarines was signed with Italian firm M/s COSMOS in 1986. First of these craft was brought to Pakistan in semi knock down condition in 1988. Subsequently all X-Craft were assembled in Pakistan with TOT. Presently, X-Craft are being operated under COMSUBS alongwith other conventional submarines.


Specifications
Length overall 27.28 meters
Height overall 5.59"
Pressure Hull Diameter 2.30"
Pressure Hull Length 19.10"
Displacement
102 tons (surfaced),
110 tons (sub-merged)

Operation Depth In excess of 100 m
Test Depth In excess of 100 m
Max. speed (surfaced) 9 KTS (on diesel engine)
Max. speed (submerged) 6 KTS (on batteries)
Endurance Over 1000 NM on diesel engine, Over 40 NM on batteries
Complement 14 (6 operators + 8 commandos)
Armament Torpedo Firing Tubes, Mine Laying Hooks

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1868
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 05 Feb 2012 19:07

There is an alternative to midget subs. The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. Except the Special force role, most of the other roles can be performed by this AUV's.
http://www.spsnavalforces.net/exclusive ... genous-AUV

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 05 Feb 2012 19:08

Aditya_V wrote:How many midget subs do the Pakis have?.

Can midget subs be attached to mother ships , loiter and Join Back?


Its very basic sub. A step above Chariots. Good for coastal ops. Could operate in approx 150 mts. It can be towed. However, they cannot survive a depth charge. Good for NoKo - SoKo border or Chinese type big coastline defence. If can't be towed, SSG can get into Kutch. If towed, can operate bit beyond. They seem to have 3 of them.

All this, I am not quoting from any source, just my observations.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2012 19:09

this is what the paki subs look like - somewhat like a souped up drug running sub but with military grade crew and weapons.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hg9ESLrUPxc/T ... x756-4.jpg

I could find neither the website of the italian shipyard or interior pix of the cosmos subs.

Noko subs and their external design is here http://www.silvercrestsubmarines.co.uk/ ... _2005.html

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2012 04:33

Singha.That is one large very interesting "round up" report/file of sub news!

The point about the mini/midget subs is that they are very useful,in restricted waters especially,as we are seeing in the Gulf and in the sinking of the SoKo corvette Cheonan.That Japan in WW2 could operate these subs as far away as Pearl Harbour and Madagascar,indicates their capability and potential (in Madagascar severely damaging a battleship and sinking an auxiliary and at Pearl,now know to have torpedoed a battleship).UUVs are best suited for sanitising the approaches to ports and bases from similar underwater vehicles and subs and for minehunting.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2012 08:25

What i was suggesting was rather than vik, get italy to make a ads0 in italy while kochi built a identical ads1 here...not cavour. We would get two carriers at nearly same time and get rid of viraat or convert it into a asw nd commando carrier its original role until our lphd mistral dokdo or juan carlos came along in a decade

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2012 09:25

Good idea,if Italy can build asap a larger carrier,but they have not built a large carrier before.The Viraat if her hull is fine,can certainly soldier on as an amphib ops vessel,as she was used in the Falklands (with her Harriers) and as an ASW warfare carrier.She could be based in the A&N islands which would suit her status and stress her less.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2012 09:28

Italy has built the cavour and many large cruise ships. they would have no issue building a ADS sized vessel which infact we are doing now - with their guidance!

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Feb 2012 10:08

Just a good video on Akula-2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVcaSwOJh8

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2012 14:28

Singha,I meant larger ships top milspecs.The question of cost of building them abroad/iItaly also arises.Whether it will be far cheaper to build at home or what.The recent statements by the CNS on the NLCA and the fact that homebuilt warships are working out more expensive than if built abroad due to delays,huge costoverruns (Shivaliks?) ,etc.,is an eyeopener.In recent times the only warships we have had built/are bulding abroad are the two series of Talwars,the Gorky/Vik and the fleet tankers from Italy.

Was there any cost mentioned of the Cavour when it was built and the tankers? It could give one an idea of Italian yard costs.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12156
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Feb 2012 14:57

Singha wrote:this is what the paki subs look like - somewhat like a souped up drug running sub but with military grade crew and weapons.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hg9ESLrUPxc/T ... x756-4.jpg

I could find neither the website of the italian shipyard or interior pix of the cosmos subs.



Look at those tiny propellers, must be pretty slow and low on endurance but should also have a low noise signature for suprise attacks.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2012 15:36

1.5 billion euros is the price tag on the net for Cavour incl all fittings but without the airwing. ADS being a larger ship, lets take it as 2b euros.

how much have we payed for gorshkov so far ?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Feb 2012 15:59

The total cost of revised deal for Gorshkov is $2.33 Billion for the Aircraft Carrier and 16 Mig-29K and additional $1.6 Billion 29 additional Mig-29K.

So final cost is $3.93 billion for 45 Mig-29K plus Aircraft Carrier ......say ~ $ 4 billion.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2012 16:02

so in purely monetary terms there would not be much diff between a new ADS from italy and the AG+16mig29K....around $500mil dollars. thats less than the cost IN will have to spend per ship on the P17A. add to that a service life longer by 20 years for a brand new ship and 100% common parts with the Kochi ADS.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Feb 2012 16:06

Well you cant be too sure what exactly will be the cost involved in building a 45 thousand T ship in Italian or some other yards unless you have some thing concrete to compare.

May be 10 years back when Gorshkov was signed it made sense , may be now it wont. Any ways IN is a logistics nightmare and Gorshkov is one bad decision to the many they have made.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nrshah » 06 Feb 2012 17:15

Austin/Singha Guru,

While we may continue to debate cost benefit analysis of ADS (Gorky or Italian), it is important to note that whether the second option was available at the time this contract was signed.

We have had an article in Telegraph, today showing how US and its puddle were after India following 1998 Nuke tests. But for the intervention of our TRUE STRATEGIC PARTNERS - RUSSIA AND FRANCE, probably they would have convinced UN SC to sanction India on lines with IRAN/IRAQ. We need to understand whether in such scenario, Italy would have agreed to build ADS for us, when US/UK had already sanctioned us by way of holding spares, confiscating (i dont know any harder word) our built prototypes/ FBW codes, needs to be examined. The only country that comes to mind in Western part of world is France that could have supplied ADS but we know French stuff comes at huge price and our economy was not blooming at it is now to purchase expensive equipment. Remember, some stories which said we went for Su30 MKI instead of Mirage 2000 it they were found cheaper. However, I agree, ITALY has provided consultancy for ADS, but building carrier is different ball game. Also, there are other reasons as below.

Secondly, the analysis cannot be done in isolation of NERPA which was a part of the Gorky deal. Such arrangement was not possible with Italy or any western nation then except probably France which again could not excericed for reasons decribed above.

Thirdly, the economic scenario of the country was not great at that point of time with nation witnessing first major slow down after economy opened by MMS. American sanctions only worsened the things. At that point of time, had our Finance ministry approved an expensive deal with Italy (expensive in relative to Gorky deal - which originally as contracted was very cheap) also needs to be looked into.

All in all, I feel GOI/IN did what it should have done at that point of time. The Russians screwed us (if that is proper word) once our ecomony started shining and we started purchasing expensive equipment from elsewhere (C 130/ Phalcons etc). They found India was not longer poor nation and time to reap benefits of relationships where they supplied crucial hardware at throw away prices.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Feb 2012 21:01

Singha wrote:so in purely monetary terms there would not be much diff between a new ADS from italy and the AG+16mig29K....around $500mil dollars. thats less than the cost IN will have to spend per ship on the P17A. add to that a service life longer by 20 years for a brand new ship and 100% common parts with the Kochi ADS.


Yes, that does sound good - I will concede that much. Problem is, like Austin said, we don't know how much more an Italian built Cavourish ADS would have cost. The ADS is much bigger than the Cavour, and has the ski ramp to boot. Another thing, did the Vikad deal not include $$ss for the refurb of current Chakra - perhaps there was a strategic value in it that made it worth more?

ONe thing that I would've certainly liked to see with the IN would've been the a Su-30MKI based carrier a/c instead of the less capable MiG-29K, and this would have been possible with a start from scratch carrier instead of the Vikad, whose design restricted the possibility of a/c being employed to smaller birds such as the Rafale/MiG-29K

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2609
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 06 Feb 2012 23:20

I think there is enough scope for IN to have upto 6 squadrons of AD fighters for its three carriers.

2 Mig-29K
2 LCA-Mk-2
2 Rafale M

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7755
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nachiket » 06 Feb 2012 23:34

Aditya_V wrote:Look at those tiny propellers, must be pretty slow and low on endurance but should also have a low noise signature for suprise attacks.

Small propellers spinning fast make more noise (due to more cavitation I think) than large propellers running slower to produce the same amount of thrust.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest