Indian Naval Discussion

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jul 2010 22:29

P-8I completes final Design Review with Indian Navy officers and Boeing participating

P-8I Program completes Final Design Review

During P-8I program final design review activities in Seattle¸ Indian Navy officers get a close up look at the P-8A Poseidon at Boeing Field.

Boeing, Friday, successfully completed the final design review (FDR) for P-8I, India’s long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft. The P-8I, based on the Boeing 737 commercial airplane, is a variant of the P-8A Poseidon that Boeing is developing for the U.S. Navy.

During the five-day FDR held in Renton, Wash., Indian Navy officers met with Boeing representatives from Boeing Defense, Space & Security and also Commercial Airplanes to review relevant design information and performance against specification.

According to Leland Wight, P-8I program manager, "completion of the FDR locks in the design for the aircraft, radar, communications, navigation, mission computing, acoustics and sensors as well as the ground and test support equipment." It also paves the way for the program to begin assembling the first aircraft.

Boeing will deliver the first P-8I to India within 48 months of the original contract signing, which took place in January 2009. India is the first international customer for the P-8.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 22:52

Vina ji thanks for pointing towards the co-generation concept.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 20 Jul 2010 23:17

vina wrote:
^ Gurudev the IAC 1&2 at least are powered by gas turbines so we are talking about different boiler and fuel for steam generator, no ?
Actually even better, since the propulsion is not steam turbine. The exhaust from the gas turbines can drive a boiler to generate steam which can drive cats when needed or used for power generation as a co-generation system.

With atleast 4 GTs of the LM-2500 class there should be ample heat in the GT exhaust to generate steam for at least 2 cats I think.

I thought those gas turbines were only for high speed maneuvering? Ship is driven by diesel engine in normal cruising speed most of the time. To make steam you would need a boiler anyhow and boilers have everything (includes a furnace) you need to generate steam.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Jul 2010 23:36

Katare saab most probably it might be similar to the propulsion unit on the Cavour class i.e. 4 LM-2500 GTs driving two gear units (COGAG configuration). However I won't be surprised if the power plant requirements and eventually the layout for IAC-1 have changed as the ADS was re-designed and re-christened as IAC-1 , Cavour only displaces about 27100 tonnes at max load so I wonder if 4 LM-2500 GTs have enough juice to power the IAC-1 which is reported to displace about 40,000 tonnes.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jul 2010 07:12

I think IAC-1 and IAC II are 4 screw ships with 4 GTs and auxiliary generating sets. I dont think they will have any mechanical coupling of power plants via gearboxes. Each GT drives one screw I would think. A GT is compact enough for that kind of think. At best you would have reduction gear boxes.

But ideally they should go for a "power station concept" with the screws driven by brushless induction motors with power electronics controls and the motors being fed off a grid in which multiple GTs are feeding in power as per demand. That way, you can run as many no of GTs as optimal.. and all the waste heat from GT,auxiliaries etc used to drive a couple of boilers (2 I suppose, each with capacity to drive 2 cats) , I think 3 cats in total should be fine for IAC.

This could be an interim setup until EMALs are fully proven in service. For EMALs a "powerstation" concept would be ideal.

ABB etc have the power station kind of thing implemented in cruise ships of similar displacements and speed (60kt and 30knots). Need to rope them in I suppose.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jul 2010 08:27

what you describe isnt that the "all electric propulsion" of the DD21 zumwalt class ships? the CVF carriers will also have it iirc. the Type45 DDG already has it I think.

Propulsion
Integrated Electric Propulsion in the Type 45
(GT = Gas Turbine, DG = Diesel Generator)

The Type 45 is fitted with an innovative Integrated Electric Propulsion system. Two Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators and two Wärtsilä V12 VASA32 diesel generators provide electrical power at 4160 volts to a high voltage system. The high voltage supply is then used to provide power to two Converteam Advanced Induction Motors with outputs of 20 MW (26,800 shp) each. Ship's services, including hotel load and weapons system power supplies are transformed down from the High Voltage supply to 440V or 115V.[28]

The benefits of Integrated Electric Propulsion are cited as:

* The ability to place the electric motors closer to the propeller, thus shortening the shaftline,
obviating the need for a gearbox or controllable pitch propellers, and reducing exposure to action damage.[28]
* The opportunity to place prime movers (diesel generators and gas turbine alternators) at convenient locations away
from the shaftline, thus reducing the space lost to funnels, while at the same time improving access for
maintenance and engine changes.[29]
* The freedom to run all propulsion and ship services from a single prime mover for much of the ship's life,
thus dramatically reducing engine running hours and emissions.[28]

Key to the efficient use of a single prime mover is the choice of a gas turbine that provides efficiency over a large load range; the WR21 gas turbine incorporates compressor intercooling and exhaust heat recuperation, making it significantly more efficient than previous marine gas turbines, especially at low and medium load.

The combination of greater efficiency and plenty of fuel storage give an endurance of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h).[28] High power density, coupled with the hydrodynamic efficiency of a longer hull form, allows for sustained high speed; It has been reported that Daring reached her design speed of 29 knots (54 km/h) in 70 seconds and achieved a speed of 31.5 knots (58 km/h) in 120 seconds during sea-trials in August 2007.[5]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jul 2010 08:30

hopefully the P17A and P15C can go that route.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jul 2010 09:02

what you describe isnt that the "all electric propulsion" of the DD21 zumwalt class ships? the CVF carriers will also have it iirc. the Type45 DDG already has it I think.

Yes. I see that the military have adopted it finally. But they are late in this sort of thing. It has been around at least since the late 80s (started talking about it in mid 80s, started appearing in late 80s/early 90s) in cruise ships specifically where there is a high "hotel" load (loud and lewd Oieropeans and Amirkhans cruising in Caribbeans, Bahamas and Adriatic and Mediterranean might pretend to want the sun, but will want air conditioning of polar temps in their cabins and a bath tub full of fresh hot water in their luxe suites to loll around for an hour , and chilled swimming pool on deck. all energy hogs) and in addition, high cruise speeds (means more trips to operator, more revenue, so you want to whisk passengers from place to place very fast , rather than tooling around in open seas earning no revenue but incurring costs.. passengers eat like pigs, have huge maintenance, hog energy.. need to get them off ASAP and get the next lot in).. So the the 'power station' concept becomes attractive in situations where you have high hotel load and high cruise power demand, because you can aggregate the prime movers into a couple of highly efficient and optimally sized packages that scale efficiently as per demand (for eg, in port, 1 GT operating and most efficient setting could supply hotel load, for low speed, one more GT could kick in , one more for higher speed cruise, one GT as reserve etc) or in cruise ships, for more efficiency for base load and low speed cruise, you can have a couple of medium speed diesels.

All in all, it is well proven 30 year old tech. ABB pioneered that in cruise ships .(most cruise ships are built in Finland /Scandinavia (Wasa marine a leader), so ABB, Scandinavian, all bhai-bhai onree). Now ABB is nearly a desi company and so is Siemens. Bother are big time into India and are listed in India. Do "vaarta laab" with Siemens and ABB (also rope in BHEL, they do have experience with power electronics for locos etc, in fact the loco motors and controllers will be largely similar and can be transferred straight.. some amount of work adapting the control electronics from the ABB elec locos in IR service (probably made athi adhunik with latest power electronics) and higher capacity motors can do the trick or in any case, if shown money, ABB, Siemens types will be more than happy to adapt their off the shelf stuff for the IN or if they have a 100% "indigenous fetish", BHEL could do the job in a consortium with one of the global biggies.

JMT etc.

Really haven't looked at this for a long time, but looks like the concept has evolved.. Google Chaccha says that ABB Azipod is the beshtest, latesht and greatesht. I think they should rope in ABB for the propulsion and put four of those azipods on the IAC 2 ,along with steam generating plant using the waste heat of the powerplants for cats. Will be a real TFTA ship if they do that and cutting edge for sure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2010 09:27

Submarines for long have been using generator-motor(Siemens is a big player there) combo for acoustic noise from the gearbox assembly is ruled out , however in case of surface vessels initial cost is a big turn off may be aircraft carriers and battle cruisers might be suitable for the above layout as IN takes good care of its carriers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jul 2010 09:43

the anglo-french CVF is certainly going that route and certainly all such large ships like DDG in future will use it in EU and USN.

IN was reported to be willing to put down around $700mil per P17A to get the most tfta stuff on it. (later whispers alleged $1b each). so certainly, it makes sense - less noise, easier to upkeep, more interior space for better living quarters..."soft stuff" but a happy, comfortable and efficient ship is a good thing.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Jul 2010 20:16

chackojoseph wrote: Sure, that is old news. This is new speculation. Lets wait for sometime and see. We don't require 4 carriers definitely.

Yesterday 2 thoughts passed my mind.

It could be with so many rattlings in China sea, unkil might have thought that it could do with a large friendly carrier around than in UK. So they set up a Lightning 2 upon us. Some one must be footing certain bill somewhere.

Other thought was that UK is actually wanting out of f-35 or minimum commitments. So may be Injuns could pick up balance of the commitments + other mall from unkil.

Injuns might have thought if not IAC-2 right now, then we can certainly make a IAC-3 to replace Gorshkov.

But, all di ij speculation.

Pleej dond thig tat thij ij Phrontier Indiya thing tang stuff. I am just speculating very wild.

Who knows what we hear tomorrow or the days after.

In my book, everything is speculation unless it is put in GoI order book.

Yes, it is an old news. But the puzzle started getting interesting, when Def. Min talks exactly 65,000 tons displacement for the IAC2 and Navy talks abt EMALS and F-35 in the same breath. It gets further interesting when BARC throwed their hat in with N propulsion. When you combine all this and do the permutation & combination, you get a possibility of atleast more than 3 carriers. I have no qualms if you start opening the sluice gates of speculation.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jul 2010 20:27

The nook propulsion is too premature to talk about. lets see nook sub kya gul khilalta hai.

Injun govarnmed haj nat icchued any denials yet.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 22 Jul 2010 02:19

andy B wrote:^^^ That is correct GD the Poseidon for USN will indeed be without MAD and as you said they are looking for high altitude release of torps onlee...although will make it interesting to see how they will deploy sonobuoys from that sort of altitude

interesstingly though withose sort of altitudes the surface search radar will get a mucho better view of the horizon and should be able to see quite far...

Yes! the USN was of view that low flying aircraft is vulnerable to submarine launched anti-aircraft missiles! they Have something called Fish Hawk (developed by Raytheon) to deploy sonobuoys from great height and also release torpedoes from that height!

Interestingly, Raytheon Fish Hawk has been offered to India too!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jul 2010 13:44

Interesting new devlopment in sub sonar/commns. here.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/07 ... 279756733/

This could revolutionise the design of sub hulls which have to accomodate sonar domes,have holes drilled,etc.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Jul 2010 14:42

Indian P-8I Clears Final Design Review
Aviation Week

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jul 2010 14:58

Jet fighter supplies for India’s Admiral Gorshkov to be completed this year

Russia will supply to India Mi-29 fighters for the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov before the end of this year, Mikhail Pogosyan, general director of the companies Sukhoi and MiG, told a press conference at the Farnborough International Airshow 2010.

“The main supplies should be completed this year,” he said.

A total of 16 planes are to be supplied to India under the contract. Six of the planes have already been supplied.

The planes are being transferred to India in strict compliance with the timeframe envisioned by the contract, Pogosyan said.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 15:49

Raytheon and Elcome Marine Complete Phalanx Maintenance for Indian Navy

INS Jalashwa to India, the landing platform dock arrived in India with two Phalanx Block 1 systems on board. Maintenance on the Phalanx systems included the replacement of circuit cards and other work.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Jul 2010 21:13

Are we using block fabrication method for our other ship building efforts ? any gurus?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jul 2010 01:55

Not Indian but few great pictures of Typhoon in the article.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jul 2010 11:07

An Article on Kilo

http://www.4shared.com/document/bG7993u6/Kilo.html

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 24 Jul 2010 17:05

Austin, that website requires the installation of 4shared software to access the file. Can you upload it to other sites like ifile.it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jul 2010 20:08

Marut wrote:Austin, that website requires the installation of 4shared software to access the file. Can you upload it to other sites like ifile.it?

Ok Done Kilo

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Jul 2010 21:23

Marut wrote:Austin, that website requires the installation of 4shared software to access the file. Can you upload it to other sites like ifile.it?

Easily downloaded without installation of any software at all.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Jul 2010 22:14

A bit old but should give us some insight on the capability of Tu-142M ASW that we operate.

Tu-142M Airborne Antisubmarine System

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 24 Jul 2010 22:20

Austin, thanks for the ifile link.

chetak, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't get the regular download button showing up on my browser but only the 4shared desktop install button, hence the confusion

It's all sorted out now.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 25 Jul 2010 02:40

chackojoseph wrote:Raytheon and Elcome Marine Complete Phalanx Maintenance for Indian Navy

INS Jalashwa to India, the landing platform dock arrived in India with two Phalanx Block 1 systems on board. Maintenance on the Phalanx systems included the replacement of circuit cards and other work.

Chackojee, was it phalanx CIWS that missed a speedboat in the recent tests? If it is, then .............

sometimeback, there were reports saying that india had expressed interest in Mistral class ships ! Any updates??

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jul 2010 03:36

why does not India build its own phalanx ?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jul 2010 03:37

Kanan wrote:sometimeback, there were reports saying that india had expressed interest in Mistral class ships ! Any updates??

what is the need for buying ships from abroad and wasting tons of money.

ship building is one area which India can carry out well.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 25 Jul 2010 08:57

With the number of submarines chinese has, it will be difficult for India to safeguard the Aircraft carriers in case War breaks out, need of the hour is increased Submarine contracts and rapid mass production of submarines, Anti ship missiles and definitely not the costlier Aircraft carriers.

Remember China has 25 new boats under contract now; 16 are under construction today, including a new class of nuclear attack submarine designated the Type-093 and a new nuclear ballistic missile sub, the Type-094.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 25 Jul 2010 09:30

CSL's terms put Navy off joint dry dock project

KOCHI: A possible delay in getting the returns for its investments and major disagreements with the Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) had made the Indian Navy objecting to the dry dock project at CSL, proposed as a joint venture between the Navy and the CSL.
A number of terms suggested by the CSL for the joint venture were not acceptable to the Navy, sources said. Recently, there were reports that the Rs 970crore dry dock project has been hanging fire.
The original proposal was to build the dry dock in partnership with the Navy for the repair and maintenance of huge vessels, including aircraft carriers. This can be utilised by the Navy and CSL on a timesharing basis. A memorandum of understanding has also been prepared in this regard.
However, the Navy had a number of objections to the terms suggested by the shipyard.
"The terms would restrict the Navy's options for repairing its ships to the CSL alone. The Navy invites tenders from all Indian yards to repair ships whenever its dockyards are fully engaged with other ships. It is being done for all shipyards so that all get an equal opportunity for shiprepair business with the Navy according to the government norms," the Navy said, and added that the MoU suggested by the CSL insists that repairs be done at CSL even if other yards quote lesser price.

"The only gain for the Navy would be waiving of docking charges and assured dock availability."

An internal analysis carried out by the Navy revealed it would take 39 years for the Navy to get the full returns on its investment while the Shipyard would get its returns in 13 years.
The Navy has also some security concerns.
"According to the MoU, the Shipyard could dock other commercial ships simultaneously in the same dock along with Navy's warships. The Navy has security concerns to this clause," sources said.
"The Navy's longterm interest is the only consideration for any decision on this issue. The CSL should consider some changes in the terms suggested in the MoU," Naval sources said.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 26 Jul 2010 01:39

Navy Inks Rs 3000-cr AJT Deal
The Indian Express

Navy Inks Rs 3000-cr AJT Deal
Manu Pubby
Posted online: Sun July 25 2010, 08:47 hrs

New Delhi : With two new aircraft carriers set to be inducted in the next five years and its air fleet in expansion mode, the Indian Navy has signed a Rs 3,042 crore deal to procure advanced trainer aircraft to train its aviators. The deal to procure 17 new Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers (AJTs) was signed on Friday and the aircraft will be delivered starting 2013.

While the Air Force has already inducted advanced trainer aircraft, this is the first time that such high capability trainers are being inducted by the Navy, which is rapidly expanding its aerial capabilities, and has recently inducted its first supersonic fighter — the MiG 29 K that will be operated from the Gorshkov aircraft carrier.

The Navy, which has currently been training its pilots at the Air Force academy, will induct the new trainers from 2013 and Will Set up a Parallel Training Academy for Pilots. The British origin Hawks, which will be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), would be used to train fighter pilots that will fly the MiG 29 K fighters as well as the naval Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that is still under development.

The deal for additional Hawk trainers had been put on the back burner following Issues of Pricing but went back on track after Manufacturer BAE Systems Lowered the Offered Price for the Follow-on Order.

The IAF is also looking for a follow-on order for 40 Hawks and the deal is is now close to be finalised. The Hawk aircraft had earlier come under the Scanner after a Spat between BAE and HAL with the latter Accusing the British Firm of Supplying Inferior Parts and Delaying Supply of Components.

However, with the issue sorted out, the Navy will get its much needed trainer on time. The navy needs to train scores of pilots in a short time period as it gears to induct over 50 aircraft over the next five years. While 16 MiG 29 Ks had been ordered initially, the navy has recently placed an order for an additional 29 fighters with Russia.

It will also be getting eight Boeing P 8I maritime multi-mission aircraft from the US as well as additional helicopters for the Gorshkov aircraft carrier. IF the Naval LCA Meets its Requirements, the Navy will place an order for at least 20 aircraft.

The Big Question is Why the Navy Did Not Go for T-45 GosHawks, that Boeing was offering them for the last few years

Navy will be having Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or Steam Powered Catapult from IAC 2 onwards and these Systems can be Retrofitted on IAC 1 & INS Vikramaditya and the Damn 'Ski Jump' Thang Removed. (Where there is a Will There is a Way)
After all if INS Vikrant (R11) [Displacement : 15,700 Tons Standard, 19,500 Tons Full Load] Aircraft Carrier could have Steam Catapults , then Why can't the New Carriers with More than 2&Half Times the Tonnage Have & Support the Steam Catapults or EMALS.
After the Retirement of the Breguet Alizé from Carrier service in 1989, INS Vikrant (R11) Received a 'Ski Jump' ( & Got the Steam Catapults Removed or They were removed in the 1983 Refit, I don't know ) for more efficient use of her Sea Harriers.
The Reverse needs to be done on IAC 1 & INS Vikramaditya i.e. Remove the 'Ski Jump' Thang & Add EMALS or Steam Catapults.

T-45 Goshawk - Wikipedia
T-45 Goshawk, a Version of the BAE Hawk Modified for Aircraft Carrier-Based Training

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2010 05:16

The Big Question is Why the Navy Did Not Go for T-45 GosHawks, that Boeing was offering them for the last few years

Very good question. Specially since the naval pilots have used the T-45 to train for the MiGs.

Navy will be having Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or Steam Powered Catapult from IAC 2 onwards and these Systems can be Retrofitted on IAC 1 & INS Vikramaditya and the Damn 'Ski Jump' Thang Removed. (Where there is a Will There is a Way)
After all if INS Vikrant (R11) [Displacement : 15,700 Tons Standard, 19,500 Tons Full Load] Aircraft Carrier could have Steam Catapults , then Why can't the New Carriers with More than 2&Half Times the Tonnage Have & Support the Steam Catapults or EMALS.
After the Retirement of the Breguet Alizé from Carrier service in 1989, INS Vikrant (R11) Received a 'Ski Jump' ( & Got the Steam Catapults Removed or They were removed in the 1983 Refit, I don't know ) for more efficient use of her Sea Harriers.
The Reverse needs to be done on IAC 1 & INS Vikramaditya i.e. Remove the 'Ski Jump' Thang & Add EMALS or Steam Catapults.

Hmmm........... Too much change, I would imagine, would prevent removing anything from the Vicky and IAC 1. I am not even sure if it is worth it. Look forward.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Jul 2010 05:30

Too lazy to google up and fear it might only increase my BP but iirc HAWK farce was in works in early 90's itself i.e going to Unkil was not even an option.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2010 05:53

in fact the deal specifically mandated removal of amriki items.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Jul 2010 10:11

IIRC Jags assembled by HAL were around US$ 20 million. So Hawk should have been around US$ 15 million but they are around US$ 35 million as costly as an earlier Su-30K or present LCA or last order of 10 Mirage. Single vendor deal are best for everybody.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 26 Jul 2010 16:01

vic wrote:IIRC Jags assembled by HAL were around US$ 20 million. So Hawk should have been around US$ 15 million but they are around US$ 35 million as costly as an earlier Su-30K or present LCA or last order of 10 Mirage. Single vendor deal are best for everybody.

A noob (and serious) question - Will not the cost of Jaguar be low as we've been at it for quite some time? And the amount of content sourced locally would be high as compared to Hawk and this will be responsible for further bringing down the cost? Also, you said that cost of Jaguar 'was' lower? How does the cost of DARIN III Jag - with more modern avionics- compare with earlier one? Thanx.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 26 Jul 2010 16:47

IN wants a shore trainer. For for carrier landing it will use MiG-29. Hawk is common logistics.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 26 Jul 2010 18:07

chackojoseph wrote:IN wants a shore trainer. For for carrier landing it will use MiG-29. Hawk is common logistics.

Yeps! IAF is already using Hawk and hence another trainer was not chosen!

IMHO, IN is bolstering its aviation arm on a war footing in order to counter PLAAN threat! Since we can never catch up in submarines or surface fleet(not before another 40 years), this really makes sense!

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 26 Jul 2010 20:40

Kanan wrote:
IMHO, IN is bolstering its aviation arm on a war footing in order to counter PLAAN threat! Since we can never catch up in submarines or surface fleet(not before another 40 years), this really makes sense!

Wow sir , you are one of the greats who can see not ten , twenty , thirty but forty years ahead.Since we are getting into 'Bizarre territory' I have my own version, we will beat the Chinese whether called PLAAN or something else in the submarine area hands down in 40 yrs., what say?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 26 Jul 2010 21:59

Dear manishw, when i say "catch up" I mean numbers! They have around 70 subs against some 15 that we do! And all the 15 are most likely be retired by 2025 (these are kilos, foxtrots and type-209)! Our scorpenes will be ready by 2020-22 (estimated) and P-75I say,2025? That in addition to 3 SSBNs and 3 SSNs! That makes 18 vs. 50-70! I hope you got what I mean!

I wouldn't say "beat them", and we don't have to wait 40 years! Once P-8Is are here , I don't think the PLAAN's submarines would dare venture into Indian territories with the kind of impunity their army shows along LAC! In addition we are looking at new helicopters for anti-submarime warfare! Also IN is planning for MRMR aircraft to complement the P-8s! To beat the Chinese submarines, we need good ASW platforms and IN is going in the right direction by opting for airborne ASW platforms! Our Navy is probably the most prudent of all the three arms of our military!