Indian Naval Discussion

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Feb 2012 06:26

CM,quite right.Who would lease a nuclear sub for 10 years just for "training"! It adds a totally new dimension to the reach and striking power of the IN.In fact,after operating the Chakra for a short period,the enormous options that its unlimited (90-100 days on patrol) range allows when compared with a diesel boat,will in my opinion,change the IN's outlook as to its future acquisitions,with a larger % of N-boats planned for in the future.One Akula carries twice the weapon load of a diesel sub,like a Scorpene and actually has more devastating missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes in its arsenal.It also has many more anti-sub,anti-torp. decoys,of both soft and hard kill syatems.The ability to sprint to the area of crisis in half the time as a conventional sub too is no better illustrated than the speedy deployment of a RN nuclear sub to the Falklands right now.

Th faster we build and source our SSBNs and SSGNs,the stronger will the IN and nation be in deterring the enemy.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2012 06:58

^ I would not be surprised, contingent to Arihant's performance during sea trials of course, if the tender for the second line SSKs gets shafted, and monies are instead invested in just more Scorpenes and the quick development/deployment of a home built SSN. I think a Arihant sized SSK would be very, very nice.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem » 13 Feb 2012 07:26

Few indian Le Terribles will do.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Feb 2012 08:42

CM,there was a little pic of a cutaway section of an Indian SSGN in an old issue of the F mag,during the year that the ATV was launched.It has been misplaced,but the design resembled the ATV very much.There is probably a plan to use the ATV's basic design ,which incidentally can also serve well as an SSGN using the smaller K-15 missile,for a dedicated attack sub.Perhaps the sub might need a more powerful reactor and other elements for the use of special forces.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 13 Feb 2012 15:21


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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2012 11:16

Russian non-nuclear submarine could win a tender in India - source

The submarine "Amur-1650" with air-independent propulsion system (VNEU), along with submarines, "Scorpio" (France), Type-214 (Germany), S-80 (Spain) involved the Indian tender for the purchase of six submarines for the Navy national general worth 11.8 billion dollars. The contest was announced in September 2011.

"Russian submarine of Project 677E" Amur-1650 "has a good chance to win the tender because of their unique characteristics, including the time spent under water by promising AIP - more than 25 days, as well as long-range detection of underwater targets "- the spokesman said.

In this regard, he recalled that the time spent underwater submarines of the Russian foreign counterparts is 15-20 days.

"Our submarine will also be able to compete with foreign counterparts on cost parameters," - said the source, noting, for example, that the price of "Scorpio" is approximately $ 500 million. At the same time, he did not name the exact price of the Russian submarine.

Earlier, Chief Naval Fleet, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, told RIA Novosti that the first Russian non-nuclear submarine with AIP can be created in 2014 by Project 677. Now at the "Admiralty Shipyards" laid two submarines of this project, which will be installed AIP. . The development goes faster pace VNEU specialists of the central design bureau (CDB), "Rubin."

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2012 11:23

The new AIP under development using diesel to get Hydrogen is quite promising , considering you dont have to carry hydrogen on board plus you dont need specialised shore based infra for it.

The submerged endurance of ~ 25 days with new AIP is also quite good , considering the Kilos without AIP cannot do a submerged endurance of more than 8 days , so the AIP increases under water endurance by atleast 3 times.

I do not know if the 15-20 days submerged endurance of foreign AIP is true or is a marketing talk by Rubin will find out more, but from what i had read in Naval Forces for German Fuel Cell AIP using Hydrogen as fuel it needs to be maintained at a purity rate of atleast 99 % and the shore infra to maintain such a purity level is not only expensive but also difficult to maintain hence limited at few places.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2012 11:41

german SSKs probably operate from only 1 or 2 TFTA bases and slink around in the baltic sea only, with the occasional foray into the north sea. what works great there and within their cost structure and readiness levels may not work for us. we need to operate at 5X the distance, from a range of bases against very hostile array of foes.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kailash » 14 Feb 2012 12:46


Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 14 Feb 2012 13:46

Austin, there was some talks from Navantia to equip the second batch of S-80 sub with an AIP of greater endurance than the first batch.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Feb 2012 13:51

German U-boats with AIP have conducted ops in the Atlanntic validating their AIP system.The SoKos are also building under licence the same,and Indonesia is likely to buy the same built by SoKo.A few years ago I gave a comparison of MESMA and the German Fuel Cel AIP systems.AS Austin has said,storage of fuel requires serious infrastructure on shore.The Russians were also reportedly experimenting with new batteries which had twice the power of conventional sub battereies,which if perfected would require no AIP system at all.

The report about the likely win by the Russian sub (AMUR) now looks dated with the news of the dumping of a non-AIP Amur/Lada series by Russia.I think that this decision -for the second line will be delayed until AIP systems offered can be properly evaluated.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12133
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Feb 2012 13:58

And depends on whether the DRDO AIP is line to be integrated with the last 2 Scorpenes.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2012 13:59

Snehashis wrote:Austin, there was some talks from Navantia to equip the second batch of S-80 sub with an AIP of greater endurance than the first batch.


Yes I read the same , most likely it would be French MESMA ......S-80 is a bigger scorpene so if selected it will have maximum logistics commonality with Indian Scorpene.....I see S-80 as strong contender.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 14 Feb 2012 14:15

Austin, logistically a limited tender between S-90(?) and Super Scorpene is much preferable than bringing the Germans and Russian on board. If Navy wants an ocean going conventional sub then the next gen AIPs will come handy. Otherwise IMHO the endurance provided by the current breed of any western AIPs are adequate.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Feb 2012 14:29

Yes,but "what about the arrows?" ,as a former naval pal of mine always says. The western subs lack missile punch that the Russians subs possess.Klub and Brahmos,and Shkval rocket torpedoes,which the IN want.There is no way that the Russians will allow their missiles to be integrated with a western sub,and both Scorpene and the U-boats are too small.I also do not see any major problem in the IN operating more than one ,even two types of conventional AIP subs,if the numbers are large.For decades we were operating Kilos,U-209s and legacy Foxtrots too,keeping them serviceable far beyond their designed lifespan.

As far as the nuclear boats are concerned,they both-ATV and Akula appear to possess some major common eqpt.12 nuclear boats and between 18-24 conventional AIP subs should be adequate to counter the PLAN and PN combined.The world leaders in sub design are the US and Russia.While US sub tech is unavailable to us,it would be folly to ignore the options available to us from Russia,even for conventional /AIP subs.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 14 Feb 2012 15:27

Philip, sub launched Nirbhay is much more cost effective than Brahmos. Nirbhay will definitely our range Brahmos which is handicapped by MTCR limitation. According to Commander of the Fleet Vladimir Vysotsky the Lada/Amur class is an underpowered boat with poor ergonomics. The Greeks and South Koreans are unhappy with their U-214s. HDW solved all the problems with the South Koreans but the boats are still noisier than the promised specs.


Added Later :

So it leaves only DCN and Navantia. While DCN with Thales can provide the complete solution Navantia can help us to increase indigenous component on the subs. We can install our own IPMS instead of SUBSTICS. That also solves the Brahmos dilemma.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2012 16:13

what about the japanese with their Soryu design and licensed swedish stirling aip? unlike the S80, the Soryu has the size and capacity for a proper trans oceanic SSK. japan is a superpower in shipbuilding, machinery, electronics compared to the spanish who punch above their real weight due to deep tie ins with trans EU defence cos of the EADS/thales/BAE mould.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 14 Feb 2012 18:14

Even if they clear it for export the cost will be sky high.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2012 18:42

well the S90-mki you are proposing wont be cheap either looking at the cost of the much smaller scorpene!

we should not discount the Soryu without talking seriously to the japanese govt. other than Khan, Japan is one nation that prepares very seriously for the anti-shipping and ASW role. most of their navy and AF strike power is into these two roles.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 14 Feb 2012 19:09

Singha, its true that the S-90 mki I am proposing will not come cheap but it will have more indigenous content. We have integrated Brahmos on the Shivalik class and to be commissioned Kolkata class. I am hoping with our own IPMS fitting Brahmos/Nirbhay on a western sub will be possible. Also the Spanish S-80A requires half the crew needed to man the Soryu class. Commonality with the Scorpene will help to reduce maintenance cost.

How reliable the Japanese will be is the biggest question. But recent participating in the amphi plane deal and the Rupee-Yen swap is encouraging.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Feb 2012 20:56

Sneh,there is simply no way that the Russians will allow sub-launched Brahmos to be integrated onto a western sub,as it would destroy the export advantage of buying a Russian sub with such an advanced missile that is not available with the west.Russia is competing strongly against western sub manufacturers especially in the developing world. Secondly,Brahmos is a supersonic Mach 2.5-3 missile unlike the subsonic Nirbhay.Brahmos is primarily an anti-ship missile with secondary land attack roles,while Nirbhay is a land attack LR cruise missile that might even carry a nuclear warhead.Nirbhay appears to be our version of the Tomahawk ,which the US has used to devastating effect in both GWars and the Libyan campaign.The IN's future subs will probably carry both missiles and maybe even Klub,the anti-sub version too.lastly,the Scorpene and U-212/214s are just too small to carry Brahmos,which even in a Russian sub,would require an extra section/pug for the missile silos and more powerful engines.

The IN needs blue-water ops conventional AIP subs apart from its nuclear subs because of the cost factor and the need also for numbers to patrol the various areas of the IOR and beyond that are critical to the IN's defence of the IOR from external intrusive maritime forces.In the shallow murky waters of the littorals,the conventional AIP sub has a silent advantage over larger subs,including nuclear boats.However,these subs have to have a weapon load that apart from being able to deal with enemy subs ,contains long range weaponry that can attack an adversary's task force a few hundred NMs away,before/while it is transiting through the Malacca Straits or in the Indo-China Sea.Only a new design of an AIP sub close to the size/displacement of a Kilo,around 3000t+,would be large enough to carry the variety of weaponry and have the endurance to transit,stay on patrol for a useful period of time,before returning to base.The smaller Scorpenes and U-boats are better suited to littoral warfare against the PN's underwater assets.

Japanese subs are an unknown quantity and may have some US tech on them that would make them unsuitable for the IN given the possibility of sanctions.Let's also remember that we have yet to experience the Scorpenes operating in Indian waters,according to the IN's tactics and strategy. A piece in a paper,ruminating about Britain's role as a reliable defence supplier in comparison to the French,noted how Sea Harrier spares were held up and Sea Kings were grounded after P-2 ,as the SKs in particular had US made components.Secondly,no other nation other than Japan operates these subs making them a sole supplier of spares and components.The issue which has become clear reg. our second line ,is that MDL is sabotaging in my opinion a quick decision on the subs,because it does not want any other private yard-unless it has a tie up with MDL,to benefit (L&T in particular) ,delaying the decision until it has finished in large measure the construction of the 6 Scorpenes for the IN.It can then whine to the MOD and say "please give this poor PSU the contract for subs so that the workforce will be kept employed ",and lobby politically for the same . In actual fact,thanks to the delays in the Scorpenes,MDL should be punished for any shortcomings and the second line given to a private yard to ensure a keen competition which will give the IN a more cost-effective way off replenishing and adding to the sub fleet.It is also a wise decision NOT to put all our sub-building eggs into one basket (MDL) ,which is vulnerable to attack by Paki PGMs.L&Ts new port/shipbuilding facility north of Madras was I think the planned facility for building warships and subs,out of range of the Paki navy in the west.When you realise that 25-1/3rd of the sub fleet will always be under repair,refit or modernisation,the need for more than one yard which is able to handle sub construction and support becomes evident.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2012 23:43

The 2nd line of submarine will eventually boil down to what the IN wants to see the entire submarine program evolve in the next 30 years , wheather it wants to continue with operating East and West submarine design in its fleet for reason they best know considering they operate Kilo and U-209 and would be best position to judge on the operational/cost advantage verus logistics/cost.

If IN decides to pursue this approach for the next 30 years then the Amur design will end up being the most logical choice.

How ever if IN decides there is little operational/tactical advantage over operating a new type but sees logistics and standardisation of sub fleet as more critical then DCN proposal or S-80 will win.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 15 Feb 2012 00:43

Philip, I completely agree with you. But the negative comments by Vladimir Vysotsky seems to indicate that the Russians will not mind getting rejected for the second line. He has given enough ammunition to the other competitors and media to scuttle the deal.

Before reading his interview I was really hopeful the we will produce Amurs with 10 VL tubes.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 15 Feb 2012 09:01


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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Feb 2012 10:02

the Amur/Lada design is substantially smaller than even a Kilo. it was never going to scale up to the size needed for a sub carrying VL tubes, AIP and a substantial loadout of torpedo room weapons. its not even realistic to consider this sub for the purpose regardless of cost or politics, it has to be technically viable first.

the min size needed is a Collins++ or Soryu. or even a upsized modernized Kilo++ with a 10m stretch. the S90 is also possible but so far nobody has designed it yet let alone offer it to us. we can discount Collins as a failed design.

the only game in town that we know is in the water and more building is Soryu. sad but true. perhaps Rubin could be interested in a Kilo++ but will turn around sell it to the chinese at the drop of a hat!

euros operate in shallow littoral waters and leave the deep ocean hunting to the big boys (SSNs). they have no incentive to design or operate large subs. they can design a S90 but nobody will really know how good or bad until the first one is in service...and we know the Collins story and how the germans kept the good one (U212) for themselves and sold a speced up U214 to greece/Soko et al which faced numerous issues.

only the JMSDF operates in deep water, the areas around japan, philippines and siberia are pretty deep ocean...

it makes me think a scaled down Arihant design (4500t submerged, 3000t empty with massive reserve buoyancy) with a conventional diesel plant (pielstick/mtu/russian) and AIP is the way forward. it can have 6-8 vl tubes for nirbhay sized weapons in arihants place and carry much the same interior fitment. need not pack a huge speed but focus on being quiet, long range, long endurance and heavy strike power. :twisted:

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Feb 2012 11:26

I think the impression that Amur is smaller then Kilo becomes more prominent because Amur is a single hull submarine while Kilo is a double hull submarine , hence appears bulky and larger.

As far as endurance goes both Kilo and Amur submarine has similar endurance , although with AIP the submerged endurance is greater then 25 days for Amur , for kilo its 8 days. Plus i read the new Li ion battery will improve its submerged endurance.

I doubt any design be Amur or Western one can add both AIP and VLS Brahmos ( 8 cell ) without degrading its speed and other performance , hence the VLS bramos on conventional submarine is a non-starter unless they are willing to compromise on some key submarine parameter. Brahmos is a very heavy missile and with sub launched it may end up being slightly heavier then the army variant.

Here is Rubin has to say on Amur 1650 which actually surfaced displacement of 1765T
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/nav ... amur_1650/

Brochure http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/fileadmin/edito ... 50_eng.pdf

Compared to Kilo class submarines, the Amur 1650 submarine features a reduced displacement. The boat is distinguished by the capability of firing up to 6 missiles in a salvo against targets at sea and on shore, state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems and a sonar with a unique passive antenna to detect silent targets at a large range.

Acoustic signature of the Amur 1650 submarine is several times lower compared to Kilo class submarines which are currently considered to be the most silent in the world. The submarine is equipped with electronic warfare systems of new generation based on the recent hi-tech solutions.

The provision is made for the boat to be fitted with an air-independent propulsion plant with electrochemical generators to considerably increase submerged endurance and cruising range. The plant with stock of reagents is located in a special compartment module, which can be incorporated into the submarine during construction or repair / refit.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 15 Feb 2012 11:26

There was some sub s-100 that was supposed to be designed for Indian Navy by Rubin and Navnita. Is this the S 90 you guys are talking about?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2012 11:28

Singha wrote:it makes me think a scaled down Arihant design (4500t submerged, 3000t empty with massive reserve buoyancy) with a conventional diesel plant (pielstick/mtu/russian) and AIP is the way forward. it can have 6-8 vl tubes for nirbhay sized weapons in arihants place and carry much the same interior fitment. need not pack a huge speed but focus on being quiet, long range, long endurance and heavy strike power. :twisted:


Why bother with a second line of SSKs. Littoralish missions can be well taken care of by Scorpene esp. with AIP. I'd think if they want LACM capability, either a full SSGN or smallish SSN based on Arihant will do beautifully. Time to think big league. Diesels are not going to help if the dragon has to be tamed in its backyard.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Feb 2012 11:33

we do not have a abundance of enriched uranium for military uses. what we have needs to be carefully managed for n-weapons and the n-subs. n-subs tend to be very costly vs SSK unless one launches a long line of std design like 688 or Akula.

S-1000 was a rubin italian(fincantieri) project that did not progress. it was a good idea but too small
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1000_submarine_class

I agree with Austin, brahmos is a overkill and overweight....and a SSK cannot carry enough to make a diff in land attack role. I think we should not dream of big VL arrays in SSK and instead focus on a new single hull Kilo++ sized design derived from the Arihant, say around 20-25 weapons in torpedo room incl nirbhay, harpoon and klub.
if needed get the french to develop the MM-40 200km land attack exocet into a SM-40 model.

requirement being a long transit range at snorkel depth, good AIP for say a 10 day submerged low speed attack mission in south china sea and then enough legs to escape submerged/snorkel back to friendly waters.

bahdada
BRFite
Posts: 163
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 19:50

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby bahdada » 15 Feb 2012 11:44

Russia faced major nuclear submarine disaster in 2011-report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/russia-submarine-nuclear-idUSL5E8DE7U920120214

Russia came close to nuclear disaster in late December when a blaze engulfed a nuclear-powered submarine carrying atomic weapons, a leading Russian magazine reported, contradicting official assurances that it was not armed.

Russian officials said at the time that all nuclear weapons aboard the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine had been unloaded well before a fire engulfed the 167-metre (550 feet) vessel and there had been no risk of a radiation leak.

But the respected Vlast weekly magazine quoted several sources in the Russian navy as saying that throughout the fire on Dec. 29 the submarine was carrying 16 R-29 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each armed with four nuclear warheads.

"Russia, for a day, was on the brink of the biggest catastrophe since the time of Chernobyl," Vlast reported. The 1986 disaster in modern-day Ukraine is regarded as the world's worst nuclear accident.

Neither the Russian Defence Ministry nor the office of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for military matters, would immediately comment on the report. A spokesman for the navy could not be contacted.


I hope our dock infrastructure is up to and beyond par for the Chakra-II.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 15 Feb 2012 12:18

Cain Marko wrote:Why bother with a second line of SSKs. Littoralish missions can be well taken care of by Scorpene esp. with AIP. I'd think if they want LACM capability, either a full SSGN or smallish SSN based on Arihant will do beautifully. Time to think big league. Diesels are not going to help if the dragon has to be tamed in its backyard.

If it is littoral defense, even AIP is not mandatory.
I think AIP plus Brahmos is intended to stalk and assault the Incoming enemy fleets rather then Land attack roles.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 15 Feb 2012 13:09

Singha wrote:I agree with Austin, brahmos is a overkill and overweight....and a SSK cannot carry enough to make a diff in land attack role. I think we should not dream of big VL arrays in SSK and instead focus on a new single hull Kilo++ sized design derived from the Arihant, say around 20-25 weapons in torpedo room incl nirbhay, harpoon and klub.
if needed get the french to develop the MM-40 200km land attack exocet into a SM-40 model.


Except the USN CBG there are no possible threat that may require Brahmos rather than Nirbhay.

Cain Marko wrote:Why bother with a second line of SSKs. Littoralish missions can be well taken care of by Scorpene esp. with AIP. I'd think if they want LACM capability, either a full SSGN or smallish SSN based on Arihant will do beautifully. Time to think big league. Diesels are not going to help if the dragon has to be tamed in its backyard.


++1

Just construct some more Scorpene and concentrate on nuke boats. ATV was beyond the horizon when the decision to make 24 conventional sub was made.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 15 Feb 2012 14:52

Austin wrote:The new AIP under development using diesel to get Hydrogen is quite promising , considering you dont have to carry hydrogen on board plus you dont need specialised shore based infra for it.

The submerged endurance of ~ 25 days with new AIP is also quite good , considering the Kilos without AIP cannot do a submerged endurance of more than 8 days , so the AIP increases under water endurance by atleast 3 times.

I do not know if the 15-20 days submerged endurance of foreign AIP is true or is a marketing talk by Rubin will find out more, but from what i had read in Naval Forces for German Fuel Cell AIP using Hydrogen as fuel it needs to be maintained at a purity rate of atleast 99 % and the shore infra to maintain such a purity level is not only expensive but also difficult to maintain hence limited at few places.


This article (in Russian, unfortunately) published in 2006, was prepared by Rubin design bureau and St.Peterburg Institute of Technology. It describes the concept and technicalities of the onboard reforming of diesel fuel into hydrogen for further in fuel cells of AIP. The drawings and graphs are quite self-explanatory.

http://isjaee.hydrogen.ru/pdf/11_06_Chentsov.pdf

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Feb 2012 15:24

SNaik wrote:This article (in Russian, unfortunately) published in 2006, was prepared by Rubin design bureau and St.Peterburg Institute of Technology. It describes the concept and technicalities of the onboard reforming of diesel fuel into hydrogen for further in fuel cells of AIP. The drawings and graphs are quite self-explanatory.

http://isjaee.hydrogen.ru/pdf/11_06_Chentsov.pdf


Thanks for the link , Translating using google for any technical jargon in russian is a lost cause.

But the concept is very sound and with a single stone it kills two bird , Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel cell is the most effecient form of AIP till date so it takes care of the efficiency part without compromising with stuff like MESMA AIP which are safe but not so efficient and in conventional submarine every watt of power counts , secondly it makes the processes safe by generating using same fuel as diesel and by not storing hydrogen separately which is not exactly you might want to carry in a sub and the expensive shore based infra to keep it 99 % purity level.

Any update on the Tea Kettle reactor that they were testing ? Thats one good area to invest for much better submerged endurance for conventional subs.

sombhat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 21:59
Location: Kolkata

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sombhat » 15 Feb 2012 16:03

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ycFOO1IGef4/TzuDdXexURI/AAAAAAAAIuA/OOah43LdHz0/s1600/ICGS_Rajshree1.JPG

Is that INS Kamorta (P28) in the background? Looks like a lot of work still left, no radar/weapons installed yet?

Source: Chhindits blog.

Edit: Main gun has been installed.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 15 Feb 2012 16:23

Thats Kamorta. It has unique anchor placement.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12133
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Feb 2012 16:26

sombhat wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ycFOO1IGef4/TzuDdXexURI/AAAAAAAAIuA/OOah43LdHz0/s1600/ICGS_Rajshree1.JPG

Is that INS Kamorta (P28) in the background? Looks like a lot of work still left, no radar/weapons installed yet?

Source: Chhindits blog.

Edit: Main gun has been installed.


Photo on clicking the link says ICGS Rajshree1

Edited Later: do you mean the IN ship behind it under construction

sombhat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 21:59
Location: Kolkata

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sombhat » 15 Feb 2012 16:35

Aditya_V wrote:
sombhat wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ycFOO1IGef4/TzuDdXexURI/AAAAAAAAIuA/OOah43LdHz0/s1600/ICGS_Rajshree1.JPG

Is that INS Kamorta (P28) in the background? Looks like a lot of work still left, no radar/weapons installed yet?

Source: Chhindits blog.

Edit: Main gun has been installed.


Photo on clicking the link says ICGS Rajshree1

Edited Later: do you mean the IN ship behind it under construction


Yes sir, that's why the word "background".

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 15 Feb 2012 17:02


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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Feb 2012 17:24

The Kamorta lookls great! Tx for pic.

The Scorpene sized subs,including German U-boats are just too small for integrating BMos.Despite size,pl. remember that subsonic anti-ship missiles are passe.Both Europe and the US are now frantically trying to develop their own supersonic anti-ship missiles,includng sub-launched versions.Therefore why should India which has a head start over these other nations dump its advantage? Even OZ has realised that a large conventional sub,larger than the Collins class, with AIP is required for its purposes.

Secondly,just examine the cost of an N-sub as against a conventional sub.The USN after exercising for over a year with a Swedish sub,has realised its virtues.It is only because US subs have a global operational area,that nuclear power is an absolute requirement,though it my reconsider its policy and build conventional subs as well if need be.

Furthermore,you can't have just one type of sub expecting it to be a "jack of all trades" it will become a "master of none".Examine the IAF which has opted for a high,med. and low mix of fighters and multi-role aircraft.Our surface warships too come in dfif. sizes,displacements and capabilities too.Smaller,stealthier subs are better for the littorals,but come with reduced firepower.There is absolutekly nothing wrong in having different designs for subs too,based upon their operational role,though one must concede that the IN requires a sizeable number of SSGNs for its gobal operations,apart from escorting/protecting its SSBNs if need be.A cost-effective balance of types of subs required must be worked out.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest