Indian Naval Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 14 May 2009 23:39

sum wrote:Why should we buy SSBNs when ours is nearly ready?

Better to develop in house capabilities the hard way rather than getting it easy now and struggling later. Also, if a lease involved so much drama over all these years, cant imagine how long a sale of a SSBN will take!!! :-?


I think it comes down to how critical we perceive our lack of undersea deterrent to be. If we are fine waiting for 5 years for ATV, to be followed by maybe a year or two testing Agni-3SL with it, then we dont need to buy an SSBN. I am definitely not arguing against building our indigenous capability. My point was this: seems like the Indian Navy had already made a decision to plonk down $2 Billion over 10 years to lease 2 SSNs. Given this, we might as well have acquired at least 1 SSBN rather than SSNs because the former can serve as the deterrent, while the latter cannot. Also, it will serve as a platform to test our SLBM without having to wait till ATV is ready.

I dont understand this whole leasing business. INS Chakra made sense. But why lease 2 more? Leasing might also carry with it some restrictions on whether we can put a nuclear payload in it, like Rakesh mentioned. If we outright buy it, we dont have any restrictions.

Maybe cost is the reason why we lease - I dont know.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Virupaksha » 14 May 2009 23:56

Prem Kumar
can we buy "military" nukes? what were the loops we went through for civilian ones?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 15 May 2009 00:34

Ravi_ku: not sure I understand. I was not proposing buying any nukes (by nukes I think you mean nuclear missiles). I am only proposing that we should have bought an undersea nuclear delivery platform. Even the Nerpa is technically a nuclear delivery platform (they apparently are loaded with nuclear tipped cruise missiles for the Russian Navy). We dont have SLCMs - so that may not be an option for us

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Virupaksha » 15 May 2009 00:41

Prem Kumar wrote:Ravi_ku: not sure I understand. I was not proposing buying any nukes (by nukes I think you mean nuclear missiles). I am only proposing that we should have bought an undersea nuclear delivery platform. Even the Nerpa is technically a nuclear delivery platform (they apparently are loaded with nuclear tipped cruise missiles for the Russian Navy). We dont have SLCMs - so that may not be an option for us

1) nukes = nuclear missiles + nuclear reactors + all humbug, i.e. nerpa is one of them. What you regard as nukes doesnt matter, what they regards as nukes matter.
2) Do we have undersea nuke missiles. Sagarika will take a minimum 3-5 more years.

Buying nukes is a big no-no.

Is a long term lease buying? Have I bought a house if I lease it for 1 year? If I lease a house for 999 years, have I bought it? Where is the tipping point when leasing becomes buying? voila, a grey area where I can "use" them but not "buy" them.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 15 May 2009 01:32

Good point. As you say, leasing might be a politically correct way of buying something without "buying".

However, I am trying to understand - in that case, why didnt we lease an SSBN? One reason could be that it would cause too much of a political flutter - Unkil wont like it one bit. He wouldnt want an Indian nuclear sub show up 100 KM from Washington D.C.

As regards undersea missiles: I am not saying we have one ready. But our undersea nuke missile program, in the current situation can *only* be tested from a sub once ATV is ready. This seems like an unnecessary coupling of projects.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 May 2009 02:07

decision to plonk down $2 Billion over 10 years to lease


While at it, that is the upper "estimate". The lower and most often quoted "estimate"s have been between $400-$650 million.

There have a few reports that suggest that the INS Vicky + MiG-29Ks + Aukulas were a package deal.

Looks like no one really knows. However, one factor is normally never taken into account: time.

IF (BIG IF) these Akulas had come on time - 2007, and perhaps the ATV had come on time, and they had built a nuke for a sub ................... we would not be even discussing this vs. that.

All in due time. Even Mrs. Clinton has subscribed to chai-biscut it looks like.

added l8r:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -akula.htm

The Russian Navy will commission the Nerpa nuclear submarine, which was involved in a fire accident killing 20 people on board, rather than sell or lease it to India. The Chief of the General Staff of Russia, General Nikolai Makarov, said "The sum of $650-780 million, which Rosoboronexport and the Amur Shipbuilding Plant had negotiated over a long period of time with the Indian defence ministry, will now be found in Russia, either within the state weapons procurement programme or somewhere else." Nerpa will reportedly join other seven Akula class submarines in Russia's Pacific Fleet.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vavinash » 15 May 2009 10:53

I agree with this. Indonesia is going to be more important for us than malaysia. We already have good dealings with singapore and thailand. IN should start hawking the dhruvs, brahmos and indigenous torpedoes to indonesia.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1255509

Indonesia: Is Delhi aware of its real importance?
Josy Joseph
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:48 IST

New Delhi: The race between India and China to win strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean region is directly linked to their desperate need to ensure safe passage for oil, coal and other strategic commodities for their voracious economies from the Gulf and Africa.

Most strategic analysts and policy makers are deeply worried about securing these cargos in the Indian Ocean, especially through the Strait of Malacca, a narrow, crowded shipping channel linking Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. About one-third of the world's traded goods pass through the strait, lying between west Malaysia and Indonesian island of Sumatra.

Military planners involved with India's strategic capabilities are not worried so much about Malacca, but about three other little known straits that are fast emerging as key choke points of possible future conflicts. These straits are the crossing points for super tankers and nuclear submarines --powerful and secretive platforms of nuclear attack.

The three straits -- Sunda-Banka, Lombok-Makassar and Ombai-Wetar -- are all in Indonesia's maze of islands. In light of Indonesia's huge strategic significance in this context "there are no clear signs that we are serious about engaging Indonesia at that strategic level," complains a military source.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KiranM » 16 May 2009 14:05

Prem Kumar wrote:Ravi_ku: not sure I understand. I was not proposing buying any nukes (by nukes I think you mean nuclear missiles). I am only proposing that we should have bought an undersea nuclear delivery platform. Even the Nerpa is technically a nuclear delivery platform (they apparently are loaded with nuclear tipped cruise missiles for the Russian Navy). We dont have SLCMs - so that may not be an option for us


Lets say we go by your logic and buy Nerpa to test our SLBMs. Then we will be constrained to design our SLBMs to fit into Nerpa.. Usually the platforms are designed around heavy weapons like BMs. Not the other way round.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KiranM » 16 May 2009 18:07

KiranM wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Ravi_ku: not sure I understand. I was not proposing buying any nukes (by nukes I think you mean nuclear missiles). I am only proposing that we should have bought an undersea nuclear delivery platform. Even the Nerpa is technically a nuclear delivery platform (they apparently are loaded with nuclear tipped cruise missiles for the Russian Navy). We dont have SLCMs - so that may not be an option for us


Lets say we go by your logic and buy Nerpa to test our SLBMs. Then we will be constrained to design our SLBMs to fit into Nerpa.. Usually the platforms are designed around heavy weapons like BMs. Not the other way round.

Correction, I meant an SSBN, not Nerpa which is an SSN.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 16 May 2009 23:40

Div wrote:

Those links just go to a search page.


I just checked these links again and it seems to work fine.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 16 May 2009 23:46

Prem Kumar wrote:Rakesh,

The reason I was talking about an SSBN without missiles was to circumvent MTCR. Obviously the Russians cannot sell us ballistic missiles but they can sell us the SSBNs, which we can fit with our own SLBMs. I am not sure why this is not explored. Instead of leasing/buying 2 SSNs, we could buy 2 SSBNs (or) 1 SSBN + 1 SSN. Fit the SSBN with Agni-3SL (to use Arun's terminology). This will serve as the 3rd leg of our deterrent till ATV is operational, which is at least 5 years away.

Perhaps I could be oversimplifying it - its possible that our Agni-3SL might not fit into a Russian SSBN launch tube.


Since KiranM has answered your questions, I will not go into that. But the only reason I see why we should go for a SSBN without the missiles would be to do something along these lines...

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

from the above link...

"4 nuclear-powered SSGNs, each capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with conventional warheads."

But let us crawl before we can walk...

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7532
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gerard » 17 May 2009 00:15

And let us place our order for mithai before the Akula II comes. :mrgreen:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 May 2009 13:23

Rakesh BR page on Mig-29K put the "Operational Ceiling: 27,000 metres (88,580 feet)" , does not look good to me ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/MiG-29K.html

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gaur » 18 May 2009 13:31

^^ You are kidding, right? On the other hand, 27000 meters looks too good to me. Most a/cs have 50000-60000ft service ceiling.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 May 2009 14:10

It should be like ~ 18,000 m

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gaur » 18 May 2009 14:45

^^ It seems I had misunderstood your previous post. Yes, 18000 metres would make more sense. 27000 metres is too much.

parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby parshuram » 18 May 2009 17:02

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, AVSM, PVSM, ADC, Chief of the Naval Staff arrived Visakhapatnam, on a two day visit to Eastern Naval Command. During his stay here, he will be the Chief Guest at the Commissioning Ceremony of Indian Navy’s sixth Landing Ship Tank (Large) Airavat, scheduled to take place on 19 May 09, at IN Jetty at Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

Yard 3016, christened and launched by Mrs. Maria Teresa Mehta at Kolkota on 27 Mar 06,the ship is to be commissioned as ‘INS Airavat’ on Tuesday, 19 May 09. The ship was formally handed over to the Indian Navy on 30 Mar 09 at M/s Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited, Kolkota - A notable achievement. Airavat is the fifth LST (L) of the Indian Navy and third of the Shardul class. As a platform designed for amphibious operations against the enemy, she is a further upgrade on the Magar Class (the First LST (L)) in her suite of weapons, sensors and indigenous content. With a significantly enhanced Weapon package, latest Control Systems and better Habitability conditions, Airavat delivers considerable punch and Amphibious capabilities to the fighting prowess of the Indian Navy.

The ship can carry 10 Main Battle Tanks, 11 Combat Trucks and 500 Troops and has a considerable range and endurance at sea. Besides undertaking amphibious operations, the ship is a potent assault platform capable of operating both Seaking 42C and the indigenous Dhruv helicopters. She is fitted with two indigenous WM 18A Rocket Launchers to support successful amphibious operations. The threat from air is dealt with through two indigenous CRN 91 Anti-Aircraft Guns auto-controlled by Optronic Sights and shoulder launched IGLA Surface to-Air Missiles. It also has soft kill ability through Chaff Rockets, which can be used to clutter the sensory inputs of an incoming enemy aircraft or missile.

The ship is fitted with Remote Propulsion Control, Battle Damage Control System and Automated Power Management System. These are fully integrated, microprocessor based, digital control systems for providing control and for monitoring ships machinery and systems. The ship also has a microprocessor based anti-roll Flume Stabilisation System and Smoke Curtains to impede spreading of smoke and toxic gases in case of fire onboard. In addition, the ship can act as a Fleet tanker through stern refueling of other naval vessels and as a hospital ship. The ship can be effectively tasked for HADR ( Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief) missions during natural calamities like tsunami, cyclone, earthquake etc, and can operate independently at high seas for as long as 45 days

link

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Tilak » 19 May 2009 08:19

X-Posted :

Disconnect emerges in India-US military views

New Delhi, May 14: A clear disconnect has emerged in the military views of India and the US, with a top American military commander saying Washington is comfortable with the increased presence of the Chinese Navy in the Indian Ocean, a suggestion that New Delhi bristles at.

This apart, Admiral Timothy J Keating, who heads the Hawaii-based US Pacific Command, said he would like China to come aboard - as an observer and later as a participant - in the annual India-US Malabar naval war games that occasionally take on a trilateral hue. India is hardly expected to root for this.

And, the US would be comfortable with the Chinese Navy acquiring berthing facilities in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, a move that India has been vehemently opposing, Keating, who was on a two-day visit here, told reporters Thursday.

Keating also felt the broader India-US military-military contact could be considerably ramped if New Delhi signs three rather controversial pacts, one of them on providing mutual logistics support, that have been pending for long. India has often said it is uncomfortable with the language of the pacts and that they would have to be reworked.

"It's not a question of us versus them. There's lots of room in the Indian Ocean for various players," Keating contended.

"We are not in favour of splitting the Indian Ocean into sphere but are talking in terms of cooperating and collaborating and sharing best practices," he maintained.

Keating also welcomed the increased participation of the Chinese Navy in the anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden at a time when India has been expressing growing concern over this, viewing it as Beijing's muscling into New Delhi's backyard.

In floating the Indian Ocean Naval Seminar (IONS) last year, India aimed to crate a regional grouping stretching from the eastern coast of Africa to Australia. The US and China were specifically excluded on the ground they were not Indian Ocean littoral states.

Speaking about the Malabar exercises, Keating said the US had "no objection" to China coming on board.

China had created a major ruckus when the trilateral version of the war games - also involving Australia, Japan and Singapore - were conducted in the Bay of Bengal in 2007 against the usual exercise area off India's west coast.
.....


As for the three military pacts, one of these is Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) that enables cashless transactions for fuel and other non-lethal supplies that are balanced at the end of the year.

India says agreeing to this would be tantamount to granting the US navy and air force berthing and landing facilities in India.

This apart there is CISMOA (Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement) and the End-User Agreement.

The first would have the Indian military reconfiguring their communications frequencies to make them compatible with the US grid. While there are some advantages to this, particularly during disaster relief operations and war games, the downside would be compromising India's security setup.

As for the End-User Agreement, Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta is on record as terming this as restrictive.

Under the agreement, India would have to certify that the US military hardware it purchases would not be used in combat. :rotfl:

Thus, even though India has already deployed the troop carrier INS Jalashwa it has purchased from the US, the End-User Agreement for this is yet to be inked.

The End-User Agreement has also not been signed for the eight Boeing P8I Orion :!: long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft that are being purchased for the Indian Navy.

The three pacts were high on the agenda during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit to the US earlier this year and there was considerable speculation that they would be signed. This did not happen as India felt it was being tied down too much in return for too little.

During his visit here, Keating held discussions with his Indian counterpart, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Hitesh » 19 May 2009 09:11

IN would be better to tell Keating where to f**k off.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vavinash » 19 May 2009 09:21

Anyone willing to bet manio and MMS will sign the deals vetoing the armed forces? About Malabar IN should insist on bring Russians into these annual exercises.
Last edited by Jagan on 20 May 2009 05:10, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Be nice to our newly re-elected PM (BRF rule # 13-459)

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tejas » 19 May 2009 09:23

Bring in Iran as a participant and Cuba/Venezuela as observers. :twisted:

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 754
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby darshan » 19 May 2009 09:58

It is shame on UPA's part that somebody had guts to say such things without second thoughts.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1170
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nihat » 19 May 2009 10:48

India is not an equal of TSP and if at some level the Us still thiks so then it must be reminded of it.

"Military hardware not to be used in combat" :rotfl:

To hell with their weaponry then.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vavinash » 19 May 2009 10:56

Nihat wrote:India is not an equal of TSP and if at some level the Us still thiks so then it must be reminded of it.

"Military hardware not to be used in combat" :rotfl:

To hell with their weaponry then.


A planted news about F-16 and F-18 being eliminated from MRCA will do the needful.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 19 May 2009 11:32

Under the agreement, India would have to certify that the US military hardware it purchases would not be used in combat


Am I reading this right, or is this plain ol' DDM? :shock: If the military hardware cannot be used in combat, what are we supposed to do with them? Make Achaar (pickles)????! :twisted:

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9917
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sum » 19 May 2009 13:46

If the military hardware cannot be used in combat, what are we supposed to do with them?

Show off in all R-day parades and joint exercises and quietly return the keys when actual battle begins (similar to Paki missiles and Nukes, i guess)

narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby narayana » 19 May 2009 14:14

INS Airavat - Landing Ship Tank (Large),was commisioned today by Adm.Suresh mehta,the ship can carry 11 MBT's, 10 tanks, and 500 Troops.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 May 2009 19:23

On the topic of China coming on-board for Malabar, China should drop the usage of "China" to be considered to come on board.

On a more serious note, Obama's thinking are coming into play. My feel is that he is going to fast with his approach and it could backfire AFTER he leaves office and future presidents will be left to clean up. It is not that his policies are that bad, just that the Chicom will take advantage of it - pull the rug from under the US' feet in about 20 years.

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rupesh » 19 May 2009 21:56

Raja Bose wrote:
Under the agreement, India would have to certify that the US military hardware it purchases would not be used in combat


Am I reading this right, or is this plain ol' DDM? :shock: If the military hardware cannot be used in combat, what are we supposed to do with them? Make Achaar (pickles)????! :twisted:


What will happen if we use it. What can unkil do abt it, other than stopping supply of Spares. Iran still flies F-14's. No reason why we cannot locally manufacture the reqd spares.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2469
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Katare » 19 May 2009 22:55

vavinash wrote:Anyone willing to bet manio and her lapdog MMS will sign the deals vetoing the armed forces? About Malabar IN should insist on bring Russians into these annual exercises.


Keep your hate speeches out of the military threads please. :mrgreen:

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 19 May 2009 23:13

Raja Bose wrote:
Under the agreement, India would have to certify that the US military hardware it purchases would not be used in combat


Am I reading this right, or is this plain ol' DDM? :shock: If the military hardware cannot be used in combat, what are we supposed to do with them? Make Achaar (pickles)????! :twisted:




Sigh...

EUM does not impose any restrictions on use of articles by the buyer, but does restricts the resale. The said 'non-combat' use 'might' be related to INS Jwalashwa. US Law does not permit introduction of new technology in to the region, which may create imbalance. Hence when we bought Jwalashwa, it might have been (speculating here) designated as for humanitarian use, hence the rampant speculation (instigated by Commies) that US military hardware is for non-military use onlee!

If push comes to show, there is nothing to prevent India using them in anger and there is nothing US can do to prevent that from happening, short of declaring war on India.

parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby parshuram » 19 May 2009 23:33

IIRC then Malabar is an exercise that is hosted by Indian navy and recent exercises have seen Quite Advanced US ships used in it . I guess it was Sea Wolf Class Of submarine that was part of U.S. Flotilla this time .

Now If we go by above report . Would it be more bothering to U.S. Let alone India to peep into there vessels . :P :P

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 20 May 2009 00:04

sunilUpa wrote:

Sigh...

EUM does not impose any restrictions on use of articles by the buyer, but does restricts the resale. The said 'non-combat' use 'might' be related to INS Jwalashwa. US Law does not permit introduction of new technology in to the region, which may create imbalance. Hence when we bought Jwalashwa, it might have been (speculating here) designated as for humanitarian use, hence the rampant speculation (instigated by Commies) that US military hardware is for non-military use onlee!

If push comes to show, there is nothing to prevent India using them in anger and there is nothing US can do to prevent that from happening, short of declaring war on India.


Sunil, most US military hardware being bought by India cannot have dual-humanitarian use (unless one considers neutering our neighbor, a humanitarian gesture!) hence, that phrase about no-combat use struck as weird. Anyhow EUM or no EUM, US has always used its sales of military hardware for political pressuring - withholding of spares is just one of them and India is far from being buddy-buddy with US on most geopolitical matters in its neighborhood.

Re. India using it in anger despite US concerns...given the current trend of GoI bowing to US pressure, this is unlikely to happen unless there is a sea change in Indian politics. Re. the case of Iran flying F-14s without US spares....sure you can do all that but will you still have a potent platform instead of a Republic Day H&D-preserving mannequin? And dont forget the system backdoors which all US MIL hardware probably has in order to enforce some sort of EUM electronically.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sunilUpa » 20 May 2009 00:25

^^ Raja Babu,

I am just trying to clear up some mis-conceptions about EUM and US LAW. I am not advocating wholesale purchase of US inventory. OTOH, if you see my past posts, I have questioned the wisdom of going to US for LCA (engine/ test flights consultency eyc). One never buys anything from US, but merely lease them with all the sundry strings attached. Having said that,

1, EUM does not in any way impose restrictions on actual use of harware, but seeks to verify that all the hardware are with the buyer and no un-authorised transfers have taken place. EUM (end-user certificates) are common place in international arms trade, even India will ask for end user certificates before selling a bullet. However in case of US, this verification is intrusive, annual physical verification by 'Tiger teams' is mandated by Law. Please look up the law.

2. US law does not permit introduction of any technology/ arms in a region which may change the balance. INS Jwalashwa was one such case, where neither us, or none of our neighbours had such capability (China doesn't count), hence to circumvent the law, it may have been designated as for disaster relief. Now do you still want to believe the ambhibious brigade raised is for disater relief.

3. As to GoI, there is no point on debating that.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby p_saggu » 20 May 2009 01:06

wrt the INS Airawat commissioning.
These Shardul class large Landing Ships, at 5600 tons are the largest ships in the IN after the Delhi class DDGs. Airawat I think brings to a close the three ship order for these vessels.

They I think are of a russian inspired design where the front doors open into the sea. I would like the IN to have the next design for large amphibious ships to be of the Jalashwa type with a rear opening ramp / well deck for the smaller craft, the ship being capable to raising and lowering itself in the water with the help of its floodable gas tanks, and the upper deck like an aircraft carrier.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19481
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 20 May 2009 02:54

Sunil bhaiyya, There is no disagreement on what is EUM, its concepts and spirits. The problem is with US EUM and yes that and their commitment to maintain 'balance of technology' are all enshrined in US laws but then there are laws and there are laws. Anybody (such as US) who claims to abide by strict laws also excels in circumventing those very laws whenever required. Unfortunately in India's case, if history is any teacher it will be the strictness and not the circumvention which will be applied :roll: . Anyhow going OT so ducking before Adminullahs spot my musharraf :mrgreen:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 20 May 2009 04:26

Gerard wrote:And let us place our order for mithai before the Akula II comes. :mrgreen:


LOL! :rotfl: Good One!

I have updated the page with the commissioning of INS Airavat + added a nice pic.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Shardul.html

Austin wrote:Rakesh BR page on Mig-29K put the "Operational Ceiling: 27,000 metres (88,580 feet)" , does not look good to me ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/MiG-29K.html


Thanks Austin Bhai. I have corrected it.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 910
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sivab » 20 May 2009 05:10

http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/20/stories ... 251200.htm
No LTTE threat, says Navy Chief

G. Narasimha Rao

ON BOARD INS AIRAVAT: There is no threat of infiltration or attacks against India by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Navy Chief Sureesh Mehta said on Tuesday.
...

The aircraft carrier being built at the Kochi shipyard would be tested in waters next year.

It was expected to be fully operational by 2012 and the alternative naval base near Visakhapatnam would be fully operational in five to six years, the Navy Chief said.


Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Eastern Naval Command Nirmal Verma and Commanding Officer of INS Airavat Manish Sharma were present.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7348
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 20 May 2009 06:21

Just plain DDM nonsense! For a vessel whose keel was laid on Feb 28th this year....there is no way that they are going to launch her anytime in 2010. Even the BR Navy page on the Vikrant Class aircraft carrier gives a very conservative launch estimate of Dec 2010, but even that seems unlikely. This is the first time an aircraft carrier is being built in India...expect delays.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vick » 20 May 2009 06:50

Rakesh wrote:This is the first time an aircraft carrier is being built in India...expect delays.

This is also the first time modular construction is being attempted in India... Hope springs eternal. The pics of MDL's launch ceremony showed modules that were structurally complete to a high degree.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests