Indian Naval Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jul 2010 21:45

L&T has always bided for 2nd line of submarine and expressed its willingness to build it , so it being busy with ATV is out of question.

Its pure lobbing by PSU and GOI socialist approach that will be the deciding factor finally its the neta who takes the koll.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Jul 2010 22:59

Austin wrote:L&T has always bided for 2nd line of submarine and expressed its willingness to build it , so it being busy with ATV is out of question.

Its pure lobbing by PSU and GOI socialist approach that will be the deciding factor finally its the neta who takes the koll.

Maybe some of the specialist welders who were expensively trained at Mazgaon Docks during the SSK project and relocated to the gelf can be enticed back
by the private sector.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 15 Jul 2010 04:30

Here's more clear answer with regards to the cost of $11 BILLION (RS 50,000 cr) for the next 6 SUBMARINES. Posting in FULL:

$11 billion second line of submarines for Indian Navy to boost private sector

8ak: How many submarines does the Indian Navy plan to have?

Yadav: The Indian Navy proposes to have a mix of twenty-four nuclear and conventional submarines of the SSK type. With 6 Scorpene and a further 6 Project-75(I) , the remaining 12 subs will be of an indigenous design.

The Indian navy is also planning to build micro-submarines for its strategic operations. An RFP was issued in Nov 2009 to Indian shipyards including Hindustan Shipyards Limited, ABG and Pipavav shipyards, Larsen & Toubro and state-owned Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL). Indian Navy is planning to get five of these vessels at a cost of about $80 million but the inductions can be doubled later on.

8ak: Why is the price almost US$2 billion per submarine whereas strategypage reports US$350 for an AIP submarine?

Yadav: The 2005, Scorpene diesel submarines deal was signed, with an option for 6 more and extensive technology transfer agreements was reported as being in excess of $4 billion. The Proj 75(I) is a Rs 50,000 crore ($10.7 bn) project for building six vessels. These will be new submarine and not the Scorpene and will be a bigger submarine with specific features with key differentiator being a new class of missiles, having some features from the HDW Type 214, the Russian Amur class, the Italian Fincantieri S-1000 in collaboration with Rubin of Russia. The extra cost could be for the new design that will allow the incorporation of future technologies, stealth features, missiles, transfer of technology, Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) and land attack capabilities.

8ak: Why did India not go in for a nuclear submarine instead of diesel electric?

Yadav: The utility of conventional diesel-electric submarines with the introduction of AIP (air-independent propulsion) systems like the French company DCNS' MESMA (Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) and German fuel cells, even the durations they can stay underwater can be increased substantially. They also have the added advantages of being smaller and cheaper than nuclear submarines. Another reason could have been the recent accident on Submarines both in Russia and India.

(8ak note: For a detailed note on the difference between SSK and SSNs (nuclear) read here.)

8ak: Why are others like Fincanteri, BAE Systems and US manufacturers not in the deal?

Yadav: RFI was sent to French DCNS, Spanish Navantia, Russian Rubin, Italy's Fincantieri and German HDW (now owned by Thyssenkrup). Great Britain and America only build nuclear submarines and not diesel electric.

8ak: The RFI was written up a couple of years ago, so why the delay?

Yadav: RFI was issued on 27 October 2008 for six diesel-electric attack submarines to be built in Indian shipyard, public or private, with special emphasis on full transfer of technology. The subs were to be equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) boosting their operational capabilities to have high degree of stealth, land-attack capability and ability to incorporate futuristic technologies. Since this will be a new type of submarine, the details and processing of project of this size does take time. Beside 3 reasons which delayed the project.

* Some stray thought why not go for nuclear submarines, which has its own advantage and disadvantages such as vastly improved range and speeds, but are noisy hence no stealthy operations.
* Time was also wasted on Pull and Push for this crucial programme by the public or private sector. Navy pressing to opt for a shipyard other than the Mazagon Docks, which has its hands full and has been delaying most of the projects.
* Some friendly countries have been trying to put pressure that the additional submarine be procured from them. Hence the delay in RFP.

8ak: Why is the Indian private sector so enthusiastic about this announcement?

Yadav: Public sector shipyards like Mazgaon dock running at full capacity and behind schedule. L&T's excellent performance in the construction of the nuclear submarine and smaller submarine projects has given the Navy and the ministries the confidence in the private sector's ability to deliver quality vessels, systems and on deliver as per schedule. Minimum of one submarine will be built at a private shipyard and a some sub-systems will be supplied by the private sector boosting indigenous capabilities.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Jul 2010 04:56

Are they trying to rope in all major builders of Diesel Subs together for new design thus closing the door for Pakistan to get any more sub from WEST or Russia ? 11 Billions will satisfy their lust to not do business with Pakistan.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 15 Jul 2010 07:01

It almost seems like there are different parts to the tender. Design, Electronics, Propulsion, AIP, Armament etc and each one is being separately dealt with while the submarine is being designed and produced at home base. So technologies are being bought and enhanced where none exist and this 50,000 cr figure perhaps also contains a very large R&D budget as well. This will pretty much allow us to kick start a new phase of submarine program at home.

Most submarines are like special projects. You run it for two years and feedback allows you to incorporate some changes in the new boat being built.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Jul 2010 07:23

Prem wrote:Are they trying to rope in all major builders of Diesel Subs together for new design thus closing the door for Pakistan to get any more sub from WEST or Russia ? 11 Billions will satisfy their lust to not do business with Pakistan.

who cares, India is not going to be perpetually paying outsiders like an extortion racket.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jul 2010 07:35

Co-development, partnership, RFP, RFI ................... do not constitute local control. It will mean paying others - huge sums - to get things done. My feel is that India is too far behind in many important facets. India, IMHO, needs to follow the current plan + invest in parallel in local capabilities. This is not something we should be very proud of. Granted there is a dire need for such vessels.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Jul 2010 08:37

India should try and build a couple of self designed subs indegenously and if needed source some critical equipment from videsh to bring them upto the levels of the kilo class atleast. This is the only way that independent sub-building will ever take off.
Build just one or two of these subs and continuously improve them, and indigenise all the time.
As far as subs and ships go, one can't depend on purely imports to build numbers. There has to be significant production within the country.
I hope and pray that the navy will display the same zeal towards local production of indian designed subs as they have displayed for the surface ships.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2010 14:00

For "friendly country..pressure to order extra" or whatever,this must mean France,with a follow on order for more Scorpenes.The delay in the project and controversy over terms signed most probably put paid to that.I think here too the IN also probably could not make up its mind judging from the statements in the interview.This is surprising,as for a long time now,the roadmap for our sub programme was spelt out in very clear terms.By now the decision on the make of sub for the second line should've been taken and work already in hand.L&T certainly have the capability and appeared to have teamed up with the Russians for Amur p[roduction.This seems to have been sabotaged as L&T would probably do a much better job of sub and warship building than our PSU yards,who wnat to hog the whole lot.Read the earlier report about the second line,"only components" to be built by L&T and the private sector,while assembly will all be done in PSU yards!

However,just 24 subs,conventional and nuclear is a ridiculous figure,.From all reports about our N-sub requirements during the ATV launch,a figure of 5/6 SSBNs and SSGNs each is what has been mentioned as planned.8-12 more hulls of ATVs are reportedly already available for assembly."6 Scorpenes,6 more P-75s and another 12 of Indian design" makes it 24 conventional AIP subs for the future to add to the 8-12 nculear numbers.In view of the huge Chinese and Paki sub building programmes,both nuclear and AIP/conventional subs,we need a figure of around 36 subs to meet operational requirements,especially ops outside the IOR as has been satted is aprt of our future plans for the IN.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2010 14:52

8-12 hulls of ATV are reportedly already available for assembly ? where did you hear that sort of thing.

It was 3 ATV in coming decade and later on we will move to bigger SSBN probably post 2025.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2010 15:41

Not 8 Aus.,2 extra hulls ready for assembly,plus the ATV launched said earlier reports.A planned figure of 5/6 each of SSBNs and SSGNs was also mentioned.This seems ambitious given the costs and production capacity indigenous.That's how I've arrived at an optimum achievable figure of 8 nuclear boats plus whatever conventional subs we can build/buy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2010 15:55

I think they wont launch the 2nd ATV hull before they compete the trial with the first and any nagging issue sorted out , this is a first of the class and our first attempt so they may not just be cautious but over cautious.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2010 19:23

Couldn't the hulls be "fitted out" and brought together leaving only final welding before trials are completed.If we assume another 3 years before the second ATV is launched,around 2012/2013,then by ewnd 2011,the trials of the ATV-1 would've been over (18 months time),as its expected time of commissioning is stated to be 2012.This would give the second sub enough time to proceed according to schedule,as well as bringing the assembly of ATV-3 forward.By 2015,we should have 3 ATVs in the water.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jul 2010 20:17

A lot will depend on how the trials of ATV-1 proceeds the IN will be cautiously proceeding ahead with it , 2015 for 3 SSBN is too optimistic

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 16 Jul 2010 01:15

How much is the increase in underwater capability, by using an AIP system? Is it just 30-40% more kind, or 4-5 times kind?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Jul 2010 04:05

The sub manufacturing plan was going ahead quite well, until some wise guy in the MoD made a hash out of the Scorpene project. This methodology to pass off imports done later as indeginous production seems to be the one they have planned for the T-90 purchase and its shotra defence suites.

Of course there is going to be no responsibility fixed for causing a delay and a huge cost over run as a result of the wise idea most probably by some netaji or babu.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 17 Jul 2010 20:05

Austin wrote:I think for the 2nd line of submarine we need to let private player play a leading role rather then just becoming a subcontractor to supply components to HSL for assembly.

We should let players like L&T build the entire submarine and give them complete freedom in project managing and subcontracting it.

Evolve a system of rewards and penalty where project are awarded on fixed price and fixed schedule any delay in schedule or overshooting in price should translate into severe penalties , this would induce healthy competition in the system between Private SY and MDL and results of their work would be visible within a decade.

If you involve another Govt SY then eventually it will be another MDL in making and there will be nothing to choose between HSL or MDL.

Makes sense! High time private players are allowed!

vic wrote:I say scrap the second line of 75I and go in for more ATVs

Hmmm! once, we master the art of silencing submarines, no SSKs only SSNs/SSGNs!

India will be getting such tech in P-75I and will definetely modify or upgrade it as it requires!

But, SSKs have more of a chance in regions like Andaman and Malacca !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2010 20:11

I believe the andaman sea, south china sea, yellow sea are all "green water belt" and not ideal for SSBN/big-SSN ops. we do need a platform to go in and wage war safely in such tricky waters - there are lot of shallow waters, islands, submerged mountains and so on.

we must be able to seek out and wage war anywhere, not just in particular domains. USN is investing a outrageous amt in LCS ships because their smallest warships will soon be the 9000t DDG!! hardly suited to coastal nearshore missions.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 18 Jul 2010 03:10

I think this battle is clear cut unlike the MRCA! Its Russia's Amur vs. Germany's U-214! Marlin Class is still very far away!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 05:04

This concept of small nuclear reactor charging up batteries continuously to make it perfect AIP silent sub is interesting. Russians have completed B 90 project's first sub:

http://defensetech.org/2007/12/21/russi ... submarine/

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.

Another link:
http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ecial.html

Length: 72.6m
Width: 9.9m
Draught: 7m
Displacement: 2300/3950 tons
Diving depth: 300m
Speed: 10/17 kts
Endurance: 45 days

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2010 07:56

the U214 (export version of U212) has hardly covered itself with glory per greek findings iirc. apart from sharing the hull shape of the astute class SSN, it has done precious little to prove itself. India should probably try to engage greece and south korea to find out how good this platform really is. it is understood that a range of classified systems and extras are onboard the german-only U212 which is not for sale on U214.

U212 is claimed to have a special non-magnetic hull which is suitable for shallow water
ops like baltic sea...though its diving depth is less than U214.

maybe if russian can prove its teakettle tech and supply it as a sealed unit for 10 yr plug and play cycles, its the best way fwd and avoids german arrogance and lectures about fuel cells technology. and the Amur can be modded to fire brahmos much easier than attempting that in a western design.

we can work something out as a new design with the Amur makers perhaps. Nirbhay SLCM integration will also be easier with a fresh redesign.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2010 10:48

Indian Navy Request for Information (RFI) for two Diving Support Vessels (DSV) capable of handling a Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel (DSRV).

Some of the specs:

(a) Approx 3000 tons displacement.
(b) Diving bell for 2-3 men with moon pool (diving up to 300 m depth)
(c) Deck space of 400 square meters for carrying DSRV and associated gear.
(d) Helo deck without hangar.
(e) Integral boat(s) with suitable lowering / hoisting mechanism.
(f) Suitable accommodation for crew and DSRV kit operators.
(g) Recompression chamber complex (RCC).
(h) High level of automation.

Read the RFI here:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DIVING SUPPORT VESSELS (DSV) FOR INDIAN NAVY

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Jul 2010 19:25

Raytheon’s APY-10 radar to be on Indian P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 18 Jul 2010 19:37

chackojoseph wrote:Raytheon’s APY-10 radar to be on Indian P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft

Will unkill also see what we'll see??

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Jul 2010 19:40

Unless chanikiyan hindis don't debug it.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Jul 2010 20:27

^^^^ Quote from above link.

Boeing awarded a contract to Raytheon to develop an international version of the APY-10 surveillance radar to be installed on the P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft built for Indian navy.

What do they mean by an 'international version' - Is it going to be dumbed down for international customers (which wont come as a surprise)?? And wonder how different it is going to be from the USN version?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Jul 2010 21:04

shukla wrote:^^^^ Quote from above link.

Boeing awarded a contract to Raytheon to develop an international version of the APY-10 surveillance radar to be installed on the P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft built for Indian navy.
What do they mean by an 'international version' - Is it going to be dumbed down for international customers (which wont come as a surprise)?? And wonder how different it is going to be from the USN version?

It means a less capable and technically sanitized version of the radar. They don't trust the natives.

This is usually called the "export" version but some hotshot guy from boeing marketing had dreamed up a sexy name like "international version".

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 18 Jul 2010 21:09

shukla wrote:^^^^ Quote from above link.

Boeing awarded a contract to Raytheon to develop an international version of the APY-10 surveillance radar to be installed on the P-8I Maritime Surveillance Aircraft built for Indian navy.
What do they mean by an 'international version' - Is it going to be dumbed down for international customers (which wont come as a surprise)?? And wonder how different it is going to be from the USN version?

IMHO,The hardware is almost always the same! But the algorithms and other software codes will be of inferior quality to give Uncle Sam Technological Edge! And since we will never get the source codes, we might never be able to programme it to suit our needs!

jagang · Post by **jagang** » 18 Jul 2010 21:50

why do we keep getting conned into buying something like this..is it political pressure?? otherwise why should a country paying the top dollar buy something knowing fully well that ..1. it will be substandard 2. we will not get the full version 3. there is good chance that there will be spyware hidden 4. the country selling has a dubious record of using support facilities/supply of spares as a means to further its foreign policy

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Jul 2010 21:55

Why do folks want to jump into conclusion? International version would mean COTS or Standards that is used by users overseas.

For example, if you bring a Laptop from US which has different voltage needs. In India we have different needs. Other can be that they use NTSC and we use PAL for beaming pictures.

It can mean a lot oft things.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 18 Jul 2010 22:09

chackojoseph wrote:Why do folks want to jump into conclusion? International version would mean COTS or Standards that is used by users overseas.

For example, if you bring a Laptop from US which has different voltage needs. In India we have different needs. Other can be that they use NTSC and we use PAL for beaming pictures.

It can mean a lot oft things.

Yes, bro! U.S always gives the best tech even to Europe, So can India be left behind??

I am inclined to support chetak's post, because history and facts second his point! As per the voltage anology, such minor differences would not make 'em label it an international version but rather an Indian Version because India has no common platform with any (or most) potential customers for P-8s! So the conclusion is not Hasty but one based in the history of American Defence Policies!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Jul 2010 22:16

Kanan wrote: Yes, bro! U.S always gives the best tech even to Europe, So can India be left behind??

I am inclined to support chetak's post, because history and facts second his point! As per the voltage anology, such minor differences would not make 'em label it an international version but rather an Indian Version because India has no common platform with any (or most) potential customers for P-8s! So the conclusion is not Hasty but one based in the history of American Defence Policies!

You are right. I was only saying that don't jump into conclusion. I never said that What chetak said is false.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Jul 2010 23:07

jagang wrote:why do we keep getting conned into buying something like this..<SNIP>

How do you know (or anyone else, for that matter of fact) that IN is being conned? How do you know that IN did not sign up knowing fully well that an "international version" of that radar will be given? And may be, IN feels that the performance ofthis "dumbed down" international version is still better than other systems in the market?

Let us wait for couple of days...if it is a case if US acting clever by half, we can expect IN to come out with their response. Let us not jump the gun without knowing anything about the story.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Jul 2010 04:45

"International versions" are nothing new. The soviets always had downgraded "export versions" of all their equipments from tanks to fighter jets. All that matters in this case is that the radar fulfills or exceeds IN's requirements.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jul 2010 05:31

nachiket wrote:"International versions" are nothing new. The soviets always had downgraded "export versions" of all their equipments from tanks to fighter jets. All that matters in this case is that the radar fulfills or exceeds IN's requirements.

exactly..Russia as well as Europe sold India what was called "international" versions..our Jaguars are not to the same spec as those of the UK and France and were called "Jaguar International". The only way possible to get the best possible systems is if we invest heavily (and I mean billions of $) in R&D and develop our own weapons and all their associated systems. Till then, whether its EU, Russia or US, we'll get slightly dumbed down variants of their weapons only.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2010 06:17

The mix-n-match philosophy in the MKI did set a new goal to meet.

However, I am more interested in the FGFA. From 50%, to 25%, to no-need-to-sign-whatever ... I am still waiting for the buck to stop somewhere. At times it looks like someone is rewinding the movie!!!!!!

Time will tell.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 19 Jul 2010 06:48

Why would IAF want a RADAR custom designed for USAF when it can customize it to suit its own needs?

US has exported more advanced F16s to international customers than in USAF. Much over reactions to

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jul 2010 07:36

Everyone except top dog gets dumbed down versions. Even Munna states get dumbed down version. We might just get a super dumb version. I presume that's okay with our current situation of Maritime surveillance.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2010 08:28

the eventual end-state soln is to develop a big maritime surveillance radar and control system ourself and mount it on Embraer jets like we are doing for AWACS.
the EMB-195 is a big enough platform.

btw pls check out the KC390 offering - very similar to MTA specs. since our MTA JV is going nowhere, might be worthwhile to license this design and produce it
in India using a mix of local and brazilian parts

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Jul 2010 08:35

Ok, I will re attempt:

P8I is is more about radar and sensors than thee Boeing airframe. So if we do not use APY-10 surveillance radar, we might as well not buy from them. We could have decided APY-10 surveillance radar based on the specs already submitted to us and it could have been more advantageous to us than any other system. We would have insisted certain modifications to suit us and our/third party equipment. What we are getting must be superior to what is in the market.

If you all don't feel hungry, even KFC/MC Donalds serve us localized menu now days. Or do you prefer to eat beef burgers?

The point is, if we are getting what we want, why we need US version?