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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 20 Jan 2010 20:41

Cost of SSN is always high when compared to SSK cost , the akula-2 lease cost for 10 years is ~ $650 million which is nearly equivalent to the cost of two kilo SSK 636 which is outright purchase.

A lease will always include lots of ifs and buts , the Akula-2 lease too will have many strings attached something the GOI will be reluctant to disclose.

More ever Akula SSN is a mature program with nearly 2 and half decades of production running with billions of dollars of sunk cost in R&D , Industrial manufacturing capability and the entire cradle to grave capability that supports it.

Compare that to the cost of building a 4th Gen SSN like Yasen which costs more than a billion as unit cost or a Virginia which costs similar.

Numbers matter too and it is highly doubtful if IN can afford to operate and maintain a force of even 3 - 4 SSN , considering it has invested a huge sum to build 3 SSBN in the next decade and conflicting demands to maintain a balanced force and small budget to support it.

Hence a cost effective option is to build a effective number of SSK ( 24 ) and maintain a small Nuclear Submarine force primarily for deterrence purpose ( 3 SSBN ) and small SSN ( 3 SSN/SSGN ) force by 2030.

Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Anoop. A. » 21 Jan 2010 02:15

Update saying Indian Navy to Commission the IN 303 BLACK PANTHERS on 19 February, 2010. To be commissioned by the defence minister of India.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/01/flash-def-min-to-commission-black.html

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 21 Jan 2010 04:06

Austin wrote:Cost of SSN is always high when compared to SSK cost , the akula-2 lease cost for 10 years is ~ $650 million which is nearly equivalent to the cost of two kilo SSK 636 which is outright purchase.

A lease will always include lots of ifs and buts , the Akula-2 lease too will have many strings attached something the GOI will be reluctant to disclose.

More ever Akula SSN is a mature program with nearly 2 and half decades of production running with billions of dollars of sunk cost in R&D , Industrial manufacturing capability and the entire cradle to grave capability that supports it.

Compare that to the cost of building a 4th Gen SSN like Yasen which costs more than a billion as unit cost or a Virginia which costs similar.

Numbers matter too and it is highly doubtful if IN can afford to operate and maintain a force of even 3 - 4 SSN , considering it has invested a huge sum to build 3 SSBN in the next decade and conflicting demands to maintain a balanced force and small budget to support it.

Hence a cost effective option is to build a effective number of SSK ( 24 ) and maintain a small Nuclear Submarine force primarily for deterrence purpose ( 3 SSBN ) and small SSN ( 3 SSN/SSGN ) force by 2030.


Austin you are right Kilo cost far less than a SSN but that's exactly my point the last generation of SSKs (Kilo, U-209, Agosta) costvfar less than their nuclear counterpart. But cost of CMS and other on-board electronics have increased the cost of current generation of SSKS substantially making the $$ saving from
smaller hull and propulsion system minimal.

For example the Astute class submarine price figure is around $1.4 billion, where as current figures for Scorpene are around 700+ million per submarine (would not be surprised if we pass 1 billion mark).

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 21 Jan 2010 05:08

John couple of things India is yet to purchase a nuclear sub in a one time deal hence we are not aware of the costs involved while acquiring a nuclear sub , from what I gather from all past deals is unit cost price of a weapons platform seldom tallies with the selling price . Even the price tag for 6 Scorpenes have been reported to fluctuate anywhere from 3 to 4.5 billion USD for instance can some sane person make sense out of the following ?

Following is from Hindu (imo most reliable of Indian newspapers when it comes to such stuff)

http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/22/stories ... 710100.htm

The contract signed with the two French companies was for Rs. 7,197 crore and not for over Rs. 16,000 crore, as had been made out by the magazine and on Monday by NDA leaders L.K. Advani and Jaswant Singh.

Another contract was signed with a public sector undertaking for Rs. 5,888 crore for indigenous construction of the submarines. In addition, Rs. 3,553 crore was earmarked for taxes and Rs. 2,160 crore for other items :eek: :lol: . The Minister denied that the Government paid Rs. 4,500 crore more than what was negotiated earlier. On the contrary, it re-examined the project even though all negotiations had been completed by the NDA Government and reduced the price.


But latest I heard on this matter was on reddif (please correct me)

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/ ... e-deal.htm

This led the defence ministry to create a special category called Mazagaon Procured Materials, or MPM. Of the total project cost of Rs 18,798 crore, Rs 2,700 crore were set aside for MDL to contract directly for submarine materials. But the impression created, by giving MDL a budget for locally procuring materials and systems from multiple vendors, was false. The bulk of MPM budget, as the defence ministry knew, would go straight to a single vendor -- French company Armaris, with whom India signed the Scorpene contract. This would pay for critical submarine systems, including the engine, the generators and special submarine steels.

There was no question of competitive bidding for these items.

Since they affected crucial aspects of Scorpene's performance, such as noise levels, they had to be bought from the original vendor, Armaris, for performance guarantees to be valid.

It is not clear why the defence ministry left these crucial Scorpene systems unpriced. What is clear is that French company DCNS, which took over Armaris in 2007, is now demanding close to Rs 4,700 crore for these items, almost twice of what was budgeted.

Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju said that DCNS based its higher demand on cost inflation since the contract was signed in October 2005. The MoD asked the French government to intercede with DCNS, but Paris is unwilling to help.

"We expect the French government to play a role to ensure it (the MPM items) is not priced abnormally high. We understand their need to make profit, but the price should not be abnormally high. We feel the French government is shirking its responsibility," said Raju.

The MoD pleaded its case with a number of French officials, but in vain. "I visited Paris (in June 2009) and I had a meeting with DCNS. They assured us they would hold our hand, but we are not getting that comfort level. I projected [the case] to the French defence minister as well. [In November] We had a senior French MoD bureaucrat come [to Delhi [ Images ]] and I reflected it to him as well," said Raju.

The MoD blamed DCNS' takeover of Armaris for further complicating the negotiations. But that does not answer why a contract that took nine years to finalise failed to fix the price for materials worth Rs 2,700 crore.


And Telegraph Kolkata says

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090725/j ... 280957.jsp

The contract for the six submarines to be made under technology transfer from DCNS Thales and Armaris at Mazgaon Docks was concluded for Rs 18,798 crore.

I guess above translates to about 4 billion USD (don't know what $ to INR value to take ) .

We wont be seeing these babies take to water before 2012 as per reports so one can only imagine the cost overruns yet to be accounted for until they are finished .

If India in future acquires a 1.4 billion USD SSN (first place no one would sell one ) one can only imagine the total unit cost after accounting for ToT and other miscellaneous expenditure and yes inflation over a period of 5-10 years (time between RFP and singing of deal) will take it to atleast 2.2 billion USD. Now a 700 million dollar Scorpene doesn't look that bad when compared to an Astute.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 21 Jan 2010 06:03

negi wrote:Even the price tag for 6 Scorpenes have been reported to fluctuate anywhere from 3 to 4.5 billion USD for instance can some sane person make sense out of the following ?

Original price of 3.5 billion original quoted for Scorpene apparently left out few things, factoring that in brings the price tag to 4 billion (18,798) . But if P15,P17s and P28s have taught us one thing the final price will likely be 50-100% more than allocated cost due to delays and cost overruns. Hence my 1 billion dollar per submarine figure.

My point with Astute comparison is that, if we are buying Scorpene for as much as SSNs we better off putting it off for other procurements such as LHDs, AEW, ASW helos etc not to buy Astute's :lol: .

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jan 2010 11:25

John wrote:Austin you are right Kilo cost far less than a SSN but that's exactly my point the last generation of SSKs (Kilo, U-209, Agosta) costvfar less than their nuclear counterpart. But cost of CMS and other on-board electronics have increased the cost of current generation of SSKS substantially making the $$ saving from
smaller hull and propulsion system minimal.

For example the Astute class submarine price figure is around $1.4 billion, where as current figures for Scorpene are around 700+ million per submarine (would not be surprised if we pass 1 billion mark).


The Scorpene cost probably includes TOT cost , Design and rights to build in india , its not just a outright purchase and french system generally tend to be costly.

As i have mentioned there is sunk cost for SSN in R&D ,building, maintenance and operations,upgrade(refulling ) and decommissioning ( cradle to grave ) SSN is expensive to build and operate over SSK but gives a substantial capability advantage and operational flexibility over SSK

This SSN vs SSK comparision is Apples to Orange comparision IMHO.

SSK is cheaper to procure , operate,maintain and offers significant lower capability and flexibility over SSN assuming we are talking of similar generation subs.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Jan 2010 12:06

I had a dream about it last night. SSKs are handicapped by low submerged speed on AIP and detectability if transiting to patrol area on the surface.

so far nothing has emerged that can propel a submerged SSK at 25knots submerged from 3 days say to sortie from vizag to south china sea.
new form of technology in fuel cell could make it happen in future decades.

but until then the SSN rules unmatched - speed, endurance, stealth, raw power, intimidation, payload of weapons , room for spherical bow sonar ....

a couple of akula2/virginia SSNs could evade and sink a small sized navy in open water.

along with CVN of > 60kt, SSN is the ultimate attack weapon. takes the war to doorstep of enemy globally.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby negi » 21 Jan 2010 13:39

SSKs have their own advantages when it comes to operating in littoral waters , basically well suited for forming a last line of defense and patrolling coast line and on look out for foreign submarines in such a role re-surfacing is not as big an issue when compared to escorting a carrier task force or carrying out a surgical strike on enemy installations . Also keeping in mind India's vast coast line and location it makes sense to have higher number of submarines to ensure optimum surveillance as far as sea routes are concerned so it makes economic sense to have a decent fleet of SSKs to operate in littoral waters for defense while SSNs and SSBNs can be employed for carrier escort and strategic strike missions.

Since SSNs are not on sale it does not make sense to compare its cost with that of a SSK and more importantly it is a given that when MoD signs a deal it will have ToT and all other sorts of mumbo jumbo accounted for so cost over runs are obvious.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jan 2010 14:31

negi wrote:Strange are the ways of almighty and even the MoD :shock: , Jingo arguments about logistics ease of use, familiarity of platform fall flat when latter throws its weight around. Kilo's effectiveness and potential notwithstanding IN opted for the Scorpene last time they went for shopping , we don't know which platform will be chosen next time IN goes out for shopping for a second line of DE subs. :)

I see even Austin garu has moved away from his earlier stand on consolidating and building upon on the Scorpene line . :mrgreen:


Well the Scorpene now seems to just push its commisioning dates every year and the latest figure I came across is 2015.

The Scorpene is a good sub no doubt but its still on paper or more like MDL workshop.

If the situation about operational sub is so bad then Kilo is a great buy cost effectiveness and logistics wise without pushing the latter too much , plus we managed to put in lot of our own key stuff in there a first for any Kilo , the latest Kilo ( 636M ) is pushing the yardstick further with Lada type CIC and Non-Hull penetrating Optronic mast and over all improvement.

I still cannot figure out why the IN did not went for more Kilo's in early 2000 and were waiting for a decade with no induction and waiting for the first line of submarine approval (Scorpene )

I am still for a single Scorpene line of submarine and 2nd line based on larger Scorpene hull instead of operating two different types with the nonsensical east-west dogma , but for now the Scorpene looks like a distant dream , this looks to me like another Groshkov type scandal.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2010 16:36

I just posted a report on the Israeli attempt to buy a 6th Dolphin AIP SSK from Germany,cost $700 million est.This is a high cost for a sub with operational limitations,which however is supposed to carry a cruise missile 900+km range,when compared with the Akula lease.From published material,the Brahmos equipped Amur would probably be the most cost-effective of any conventional sub on offer but its capabilities in comparison with western rivals unknown.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 21 Jan 2010 16:40

Philip wrote:I just posted a report on the Israeli attempt to buy a 6th Dolphin AIP SSK from Germany,cost $700 million est.This is a high cost for a sub with operational limitations,which however is supposed to carry a cruise missile 900+km range,when compared with the Akula lease.From published material,the Brahmos equipped Amur would probably be the most cost-effective of any conventional sub on offer but its capabilities in comparison with western rivals unknown.


The Germans sell Israel weapons that are heavily subsidized. So the real price of these subs will be much higher.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2010 16:56

Apparently for this sub,the Germans want the Israelis to foot the entire cost as they as you stated subsidised the earier ones because...German companies were found to have sold Saddam chemical tech for WMDs!

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Jan 2010 17:35

Philip wrote:I just posted a report on the Israeli attempt to buy a 6th Dolphin AIP SSK from Germany,cost $700 million est.This is a high cost for a sub with operational limitations,which however is supposed to carry a cruise missile 900+km range,when compared with the Akula lease.From published material,the Brahmos equipped Amur would probably be the most cost-effective of any conventional sub on offer but its capabilities in comparison with western rivals unknown.


Philip , Germany custom builds submarine for Israel keeping Israel specific needs of Nuclear deterrence in mind , so $700 million is not a plain vanila Dolphin with AIP.

Even a custom built Amur with TOT and all that IN needs will cost over $500 per piece.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 21 Jan 2010 19:21

Instead of AIP, it makes more sense to explore nuclear battery kind of deal pushing out between .5 to 1 MW constantly. Easily replaceable every 5-7 years and constant juice. On the storage front, the new Toshiba batteries manage to dump about 4300 watts per KG. They should replace those old sulphuric acid battery banks with these now. Store almost 5-6 times more per kg and have better charge and discharge cycles.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Jan 2010 16:20

I think that $400-450 mil was mentioned as the price of an Amur some time ago.I'm not sure which version though.Remember the news brief last year about a new Russian hybrid sub,the Sarov,which was supposed to have a miniature nuclear reactor in addition to its diesels? Here is some interesting info on the same fro Polmar.

Russia Completes Hybrid Submarine


Russia’s Sevmash shipyard at the Arctic city of Severodvinsk has completed a hybrid submarine powered by a diesel-electric plant and a small nuclear reactor. Designated B-90 and named Sarov, the submarine was completed on 17 December.

The submarine is known as Project 20120 in Russian design terminology. She apparently employs the small nuclear reactor — known to some engineers as a “teakettle” — to keep a charge on the battery, providing essentially unlimited underwater endurance on relatively quiet electric propulsion. In effect, this is an Air-Indpendent Propulsion (AIP) system.

The “teakettle” concept is not new. The Soviet Navy deployed a Project 651 (NATO Juliett) cruise missile submarine (SSG) in 1986–1991 with a similar diesel-electric/nuclear plant. That craft had a pressurized-water reactor with a single-loop configuration coupled with a turbogenerator. The Soviet report stated that the sea trials “demonstrated the workability of the system, but revealed quite a few deficiencies. Those were later corrected.”

However, no follow-on efforts were undertaken at that time. (The Soviets built 16 diesel-electric Juliett SSGs from 1963 to 1968.)

The B-90 was designed by the Rubin design bureau in St. Petersburg. Construction was begun at the Krasnoe Sormovo shipyard in Nizhnii Novgorod (formerly Gor’kiy), and the submarine was then transported through the inland waterways to the Sevmash yard for completion.

There is no available information on the size of the B-90 program. In the past the Soviet Union was an early leader in AIP-type submarines. As early as 1938 the Soviets began development on a “single-drive” submarine that could operate diesel engines while submerged and surfaced. After World War II the Soviets built the Project 617 (Whale), an AIP submarine based on German technology. She was followed by 23 coastal submarines of Project A615 (Quebec), which were torpedo and gun-armed combat craft. Other AIP experiments followed.

Today several navies are operating AIP submarines, with the U.S. Navy having “borrowed” the Swedish AIP submarine Gotland in 2005–2007 to serve as an anti-submarine target for U.S. carrier task forces. The Gotland, according to Swedish officers, could not be located by U.S. naval forces in exercises until the submarine “wanted to be found.”

The Soviet B-90 may be a follow-on submarine to the Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines that have been transferred in large numbers to other navies, including China and India. The B-90, especially when operating in coastal or littoral waters, could pose a significant threat to Western maritime interests.

– Norman Polmar


..and an interesting comment.

One suspects that the virtues of a diesel-nuclear hybrid may include:
(1) Longer periods submerged between refuelings than a diesel (for which a week might apply). The additional submerged time that would be secured by an all nuclear design may be useless because the need to reprovision requires periodic surfacing anyway.
(2) Nuclear fuel has much higher energy density than than diesel reducing fuel requirements and hence also reducing total submarine size.
(3) A teakettle, because it is smaller than other nuclear reactors, is probably quieter than the threshold that existing ASW technologies targeted at nuclear submarines were designed to detect. It also probably requires less shielding since the radioactive source is smaller.
(4) Nuclear submarines are more expensive to build than diesel-electrics; reducing the size of the nuclear fuel plant probably reduces cost.
(5) There are many potential commercial and military applications for very small nuclear reactors, particularly in places like Siberia with small isolated communities that have to fly in all of their fuel, and isolated military bases. Similar commercial nuclear power plant applications are being considered for use in Alaskan villages. This program allows Russian military R&D money to be used to develop the technology with human test subjects who can't opt out because they are military personnel.
Also in response to another Engage, a full fledged AIP (which this doesn't sound like it is, it sounds like this is a traditional air driven diesel that surfaces to recharge the batteries), or battery drive alone, should be significantly quieter than a nuclear submarine.
Why then has the U.S. submarine force been a success? Mostly because it has no opposition. Very few countries have blue sea navies (where U.S. nuclear submarines mostly operate) of any consequence. Fewer have decent ASW resourced and the subtle differences between nuclear subs and AIP or battery driven subs is very slight unless the opposition has good ASW. Also, none of those countries with good ASW has found it politically expident to target U.S. submarines.
Likewise, the U.S. has not, to my knowledge, every fired a shot in anger from a U.S. nuclear attack submarine. One reason that U.S. attack submarines haven't been tested is that in the kinds of naval engagements that come up between the kind of major naval wars, like taking potshots at pirates, a surface ship is preferred because it leaves no doubt about who is responsible. A submarine strike attributed to the wrong country could spawn diplomatic mayhem.
The U.S. Navy and I as one of the many people whose tax dollars help fund it would like to think that if we had to knock on wood that the U.S. attack submarine force would perform admirably, but it has never been tested in an actual conflict.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Chinmayanand » 22 Jan 2010 19:35


Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Anoop. A. » 22 Jan 2010 19:58



Thanks for posting the news.........have been waiting a long time for info regarding INS Shivalik. :D

gogna
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby gogna » 24 Jan 2010 00:44



Why is it taking us 9 years to build each Shivalik class frigate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivalik_class_frigate

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9918
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 25 Jan 2010 18:16

One doubt Guruji's

How we are going to provide protection to our IAC's without SSN's Can SSK's provide effective coverage for them??? I think not. We may need a limited no of SSN's for at least to provide cover to our proposed 3 carrier groups. So 6 SSN's may be needed.

Then what about the protection to SSBN's If we have 3 SSBN's then another 3 at least. Total 9.

This is very costly thing is it not ???

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 25 Jan 2010 18:36

SSBNs don't operate with protective cover. they are designed to be ultra silent and operate on so-called lone wolf missions, whereby their location and mission plan/area of operation is not known to anyone outside the tasking authority (a naval officer of Flag rank and his staff) and the submarine commander and a handful of his subordinate senior officers.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kanson » 25 Jan 2010 19:11

ShauryaT wrote:
negi wrote:^ The Chinese already have more than 50 (53/54) diesel electric subs and about 6 nuclear submarine in service.Having said that a substantial portion of their conventional submarine fleet comprises of vintage Soviet Romeo class and its Chinese derivative the Ming class (approx 26 ) .
Yes, I do know the overall number and the composition and also read enough about what the PLAN can or has done so far with its subs, hence the question.

Its a late reply. Though, pls share your observation in this regard. As i see, they are also improving, refurbishing, introducing AIPs. Going at this rate of 1 sub for 1 yr by our Naval planners, i see to realise a 20 sub strength may take more than 20 yrs.

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Willy » 25 Jan 2010 19:25

durgesh wrote:
First indigenous Shivalik class frigate to be inducted in April


Why is it taking us 9 years to build each Shivalik class frigate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivalik_class_frigate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yea India hai mere bhai :mrgreen:

Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Anoop. A. » 25 Jan 2010 23:42

Narayana Rao wrote:One doubt Guruji's

How we are going to provide protection to our IAC's without SSN's Can SSK's provide effective coverage for them??? I think not. We may need a limited no of SSN's for at least to provide cover to our proposed 3 carrier groups. So 6 SSN's may be needed.

Then what about the protection to SSBN's If we have 3 SSBN's then another 3 at least. Total 9.

This is very costly thing is it not ???


Indian Navy has been operating the Viraat without any such (SSN) cover since the 90's...............I have seen pictures of INS Chakra along side Viraat, but dont have any further information if Chakra was used for this purpose during its commision..........Indian Navy must have one of the diesel submarines in the vincity of Viraat at all times.

HAPPY REPUBLIC DAY 2010 TO ALL BHARAT RAKSHAKS!!!.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby K Mehta » 27 Jan 2010 00:46

question to ppl. did you notice the satellite in the IN tableau on RD?

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 525
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 28 Jan 2010 23:50

Teg 8)
Image
Image

Isn't she a beauty? :)

Anoop. A.
BRFite
Posts: 102
Joined: 22 Nov 2009 15:12
Location: City of the snake with 1000 heads

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Anoop. A. » 29 Jan 2010 02:44

Beautiful pictures, can you please post the links to these?..........Thanks.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 525
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 29 Jan 2010 04:33

Anoop. A. wrote:Beautiful pictures, can you please post the links to these?..........Thanks.

Sorry. They are posted that size on a Russian social network

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 29 Jan 2010 04:59

Govt scrambles to plug gaps in coastal security
NEW DELHI: Better late than never. Over a year after the 26/11 terror strikes, the government is finally scrambling to plug gaps in the coastal security architecture as well as make the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) a force to reckon with.

Phase-I of the critical coastal surveillance network, for instance, should be up and running by 2011 under a Rs 350-crore project. This will include 46 stations, with coastal radars, cameras, AIS (automatic identification systems) and other sensors mounted atop old lighthouses to dynamically locate and track vessels.

"After Phase-II (with 56 additional stations), there will not be a single place along the coast not under radar coverage,'' said ICG chief Vice-Admiral Anil Chopra on Thursday.

All these stations will be integrated with the National C3I (command, control, communication and intelligence) Network to provide real-time maritime domain awareness, as also link operations rooms of Navy, ICG and other agencies.

Moreover, ICG force-levels and manpower are now set to double in the next few years, and triple in the next decade. "By 2012 itself, we will have a 100-ship, 100-aircraft ICG,'' said Vice-Admiral Chopra.

This is certainly required since ICG is still making do with just 43 ships, 23 boats, 24 coastal surveillance Dorniers, 16 Chetak helicopters and four Dhruv advanced light helicopters to protect India's vast 5,422-km coastline, 1,197 islands and 2.01 million sq km of Exclusive Economic Zone.

`Big brother' Navy, of course, chips in but it has more of a `blue-water' role. "We commissioned five new ships in 2009. We have 85 ships already on in domestic shipyards. Another 75 will ordered soon,'' said the ICG chief.

ICG is also going in for a major upgrade of its air wing, with 42 new aircraft already sanctioned by the government. Apart from 12 Dorniers and 30 helicopters, the force is also going to induct six medium-range maritime surveillance aircraft, for which Beriev-200 and Bombardier-Q400 have been shortlisted for trials in a Rs 1,100-crore project.

The number of ICG stations will also go up from the existing 27 to around 40 by 2012. Similarly, 73 state marine police stations and 97 check-posts are being set up in Phase-I of the coastal security scheme, with another 131 stations to follow in Phase-II.

Navy, too, began training the first batch of 100 sailors and 15 officers of the `Sagar Prahari Bal' at its gunnery school at INS Dronacharya in Kochi this month. This specialised force will have 1,000 personnel and 80 fast interception craft at a cost of Rs 320 crore to protect assets and bases.

The Mumbai terror carnage, of course, jolted everyone out of their slumber. Navy, ICG, coastal states and other maritime agencies have held a series of joint exercises and drills along the west and east coasts to boost security measures and establish SOPs (standard operating procedures) to handle maritime terror strikes.

"The synergy has acted as a huge force-multiplier. Based on intelligence inputs, ICG launched 14 big operations in 2009...and possibly thwarted attempts to infiltrate due to our quick reaction,'' said Vice-Admiral Chopra.

The government, however, is yet to get cracking on the Maritime Security Advisory Board (MSAB), with a maritime security adviser as its chief, to ensure cohesive policy-making and coordination among the multiple maritime authorities, which often work at cross-purposes.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 29 Jan 2010 11:33

Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) developed “Gun Fire Control System” (GFCS) to be installed on P-28 ASW corvettes:

India gets Naval 'gunfire' to destroy enemy targets

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 29 Jan 2010 12:02

Craig Alpert wrote:Govt scrambles to plug gaps in coastal security

{......... Snipped} ICG is also going in for a major upgrade of its air wing, with 42 new aircraft already sanctioned by the government. Apart from 12 Dorniers and 30 helicopters, the force is also going to induct six medium-range maritime surveillance aircraft, for which Beriev-200 and Bombardier-Q400 have been shortlisted for trials in a Rs 1,100-crore project.{Snipped ..........}


I must say I am surprised not to see the ATR 42 but instead the Bombadier Dash 8 Q400 and the Beriev 200 for the Indian Coast Guards medium-range maritime surveillance aircraft contest. I was expecting that the ATR 42 would be the front runner given the intended tie up between HAL and ATR.

Mayuresh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 16:01

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mayuresh » 29 Jan 2010 15:30

arun wrote:Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) developed “Gun Fire Control System” (GFCS) to be installed on P-28 ASW corvettes:
India gets Naval 'gunfire' to destroy enemy targets
It is not very clear to me. Is this system supposed to be our answer to the AEGIS? It looks somewhat like that from the discussion, but the report does not compare it to the AEGIS or any other CIWS.

Also, what is the use of the 76mm gun when we already have the main gun (usually 100mm) on the ships? Or will this system replace the main guns too?

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Srivastav » 29 Jan 2010 16:29

^^ what does AEGIS have to do with CIWS...sorry but iam having trouble understanding what you mean here.

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Willy » 29 Jan 2010 16:37

Why is it that Indian Ships have just one main gun while most navies have two main guns on their ships.

Mayuresh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 16:01

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mayuresh » 29 Jan 2010 17:56

Srivastav wrote:^^ what does AEGIS have to do with CIWS...sorry but iam having trouble understanding what you mean here.


Complete confusion and mixing of issues on my part.... sorry, my bad.
Correct Q: How does it compare with other CIWS?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 29 Jan 2010 18:11

Willy wrote:Why is it that Indian Ships have just one main gun while most navies have two main guns on their ships.

? No other naval ships other than Italian ships have two main guns...

Saurabh_M
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 23:04
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Saurabh_M » 29 Jan 2010 19:27

John wrote:
Willy wrote:Why is it that Indian Ships have just one main gun while most navies have two main guns on their ships.

? No other naval ships other than Italian ships have two main guns...

erm . . . Ticonderoga??

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 29 Jan 2010 20:33

Saurabh_M wrote:erm . . . Ticonderoga??

So do the Spurance and few Russian vessels including the Sovremenny class (newer Sovremenny built for China does away with 2nd dual 130 mm gun) vessels but these are cold war legacy heavy destroyer/cruisers.

FREMM frigate being built for Italy is only new surface combatant i can recall that has 2 main guns (USN's DDG-1000 future seems pretty murky).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2010 16:55

Am I seeing things? Is the age of miracles not yet over? For many years I've been passionately advocating that the IN start operating amphibians (seaplanes),telling every IN officer that I talk too about the same and lo and behold,the BE-200 is included in the list of MRP aircraft shortlisted! Perhaps some kindly souls are looking at what we on BR have been advocating.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/pro ... ev_be-200/

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2420
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 31 Jan 2010 01:28


sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sum » 31 Jan 2010 14:59

Am I seeing things? Is the age of miracles not yet over? For many years I've been passionately advocating that the IN start operating amphibians (seaplanes),telling every IN officer that I talk too about the same and lo and behold,the BE-200 is included in the list of MRP aircraft shortlisted! Perhaps some kindly souls are looking at what we on BR have been advocating.

He he...the moment i spotted the Be-200, the first thing that came to mind was Philip and his pleas for the Be-200 over all these years!!! :mrgreen:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests