Indian Naval Discussion

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 25 Aug 2010 02:54

larsen and toubro should be allowed to build subs. They will get to full speed much faster than any psu.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 25 Aug 2010 14:40

Naval Links on South Korea Trip Agenda
The Indian Express

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Aug 2010 15:48

Juggi G wrote:CAG Pokes Finger at Inferior Steel in Navy Tankers

Tankers all over the world are built to COTS standards, as are mid air refuellers and AWACS and MPA on commercial airframes, because the former are not expected to sail inside Karachi harbour and the latter not expected to overfly Sargodha but both are supposed to stay 1000 km away and support combat assets. Also, tankers, MAR, AWACS and MPA need to have high availabiliy and low operational costs, hence commercial platforms and standards with industry wide cost sharing are preferred anytime rather than high cost custom built solutions.

Also, in any procurement, there are "must have" and "nice to have" requirements, requirements are weighted with importance, and weighted datapoints across requirements are summed to arrive at a conclusion. I dont think this was a deciding datapoint.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2010 16:41

This news is about 2 years old. The CAG and IN have been screaming themselves hoarse about the looming sub inventory/operational crisis,but the great leadership of Dr.Singh has only one thought in its mind,signing the N-deal in favour of foreign suppliers and signing away India's independence in nuclear tech,and our foreign and defence policies!

The Scorpene deal is in troubled waters,a sad spectacle,with three price escalations,hopelessly negotiated and termed, and now suffering delays of a few years with propbably even more escalation to follow.Despite the "sting" of the Scorpene,the MOD/GOI have still not decided upon the second line of subs to be built.If the IN is looking for Even the Scorpenes were not initially meant to possess AIP systems despite the fact that the PN's French Agosta-90Bs would eventually all have a MESMA AIP system.How we could acquire a later model French sub with inferior underwater endurance than Pak's AIP Agostas beats me.

If the IN is looking for the best and latest in conventional sub concepts,then as a senior British expert said,"you will never get it,as it will arrive late, cost far more than its budgeted price and not meet designed operational standards when it finally arrives..",or words to that effect.There is little point at this critical juncture trying to find the "Rolls-Royce" of conventional AIP subs for India.It would be far more practical to boost our operational capability with more subs of the kind in service or their latest models available.This is just what the IAF is doing by upgrading all existing types of aircraft in service and buying/building more Su-30MKIs.

There are two practical options now available to the IN.One,acquire German U-214 AIP subs,the follow on to the U-209s which we have.Germany has some which were meant for Greece,with the fact that these subs will not be able to carry a multi-purpose family of missiles like the Klub,aboard our modernised Kilos.Two,buy either new Kilos from Russia,as Venezuela,Vietnam and possibly Indonesia are doing,or buy the newer Amur,the version that can launch Brahmos.Russian sub-building yards can deliver subs at a very fast rate and within 5 years we would be able to posssibly have 3 in service.Another two Akulas simultaneously acquired as ATVs launched, would also be ideal to complement the ATV/SSBN inventory.

One must also mention the woeful absence of a DSRV in IN service,relying upon foreign air-portable rescue vessels days away if a crisis develops,and the equally important requirement for UUVs,which can either operate independently or from a mother sub.These would be very useful in sanitising our coastline and key ports and naval bases.

The situation is critical given the massive sub-building programme that the PLAN is engaged upon and the IN and its senior officers,retd. chiefs,defence analysts,think tanks,etc.,should pressurise the GOI and its apparently deaf PM and DM,that they cannot be indifferent to the nation's security and that of the IN's fast depleting underwater capability any longer.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Aug 2010 17:55

Juggi G wrote:CAG Pokes Finger at Inferior Steel in Navy Tankers

INS Deepak, launched into the sea.

The CAG’s report says the original Request For Proposal (RFP) had a mandatory stipulation requiring the use of ‘DMR 249A or equivalent grade steel’ in the construction of two fleet tankers, which it says is ‘almost double the cost of ordinary steel’.

It says, “Out of the three firms, only ROE offered a technical proposal for using DMR 249A/ or equivalent steel. The offer of HHIL was rejected due to noncompliance with RFP provisions which included non-usage of DMR 249A steel.

Fincantieri’s proposal was stated to be compliant with the RFP conditions. However, the firm proposed to use DH 36 steel in place of DMR 249A steel.

“Nonetheless, the TEC opined that the DH 36 steel was equivalent to DMR 249A grade steel and accepted the technical bid of Fincantieri without taking cognizance of the offer made by the other two bidders.

Later, when the commercial bids were opened, Fincantieri emerged as L1 (lowest bid) with a quote of Rs 723 crore. The offer of ROE was rejected as it was costlier, being based upon the prices of DMR 249A / or equivalent steel.”

Not able to follow this as stated. When the RFP calls for DMR249A equivalent, why was HHIL proposal rejected if Fincantieri's could be accepted. If what is stated is true in the case of commerical bids in which way Fincantieri proposal is better than others two.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 25 Aug 2010 18:09

Kanson wrote:Not able to follow this as stated. When the RFP calls for DMR249A equivalent, why was HHIL proposal rejected if Fincantieri's could be accepted. If what is stated is true in the case of commerical bids in which way Fincantieri proposal is better than others two.

Its proposal may have been better under the table.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 25 Aug 2010 21:28

Kanson wrote:If what is stated is true in the case of commerical bids in which way Fincantieri proposal is better than others two.

The reason is very clearly written in the report, not sure how you missed it.

Later, when the commercial bids were opened, Fincantieri emerged as L1 (lowest bid)

HHIL was rejected due to noncompliance with RFP provisions which included non-usage of DMR 249A steel.

The usage of the word “included” means the list of HHIL non-compliance to provisions was not limited to this parameter alone. Also, did you read my explanatory post a few post above yours?

Chinmayanand wrote:Its proposal may have been better under the table.

Do you have any facts to substantiate your PoV or are you just trolling?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2010 09:12

Thanks Sarkar for the explanation. When the tanker was delivered, there was a heated debate here on the Build quality and raised weld beads etc. If I not wrong, you too participated in that.

Coming to the point. I'm not questioning the intention of the Navy. It may be good or I don't know. But it is about the procedural lapse in executing the tender which was highlighted by the CAG.

As RFP states, if it has to be DMR-249A equivalent then Fincantieri and Hyundai must have been disqualified. If the Navy's technical team willing to take the proposal of DH-36 steel for the tanker then it must have re-tendered by correcting the RFP.

CAG points out that Navy team accepting DH-36 steel as equivalent of DMR-249A as gross violation without re-inviting the tender based on DH-36. This gave Fincantieri an undue advantage as ROE's commercial price was quoted based on DMR-249A steel whereas Fincantieri proposal was based on cheaper DH-36.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 27 Aug 2010 10:12

Firstly, national policy is that all ships should be built in India.

Only exceptions are Gorshkov, which was a hasty NDA purchase post Kargil, Teg, whose construction adjusted USD 1 billion penalty payable by Russia for defects in the Talwar class and the tankers.

With regards to the tankers, all local shipyards had production capacity maxed out till 2015. And it was decided to give priority to building 15B and 17A in India rather than tankers, which lead to no value add.

Internationally recognized steel grades are ISO and BS (British Standards). DMR is an Indian classification, standing for Defense Metallurgical Research, after DMRL, the DRDO lab that developed it.

Now, tender requirements can be changed because of changing circumstances, and it is permitted legally worldwide. There is no need to re-tender when procurement procedure is applied consistently and clearly communicated to all vendors.

In this case, savings on build, maintenance and operational far outweighed any advantages gained by using military standard steel.

The ships are deliberately built to commercial standards. It’s like IAF using Tatra trucks for Akash and Tata buses for staff transport. No one needs a Tatra truck for staff transport, a Tata bus will do.

Hyundai was not rejected for lower quality steel, but for others reasons as well, ignored in the CAG report. And the final selection was based on L1 criteria, which is the 1st commandment of any government procurement process. If there were any issues, Finance Ministry would not have approved, nor would CCS.

On physical appearance and welding, I am requesting moderators to post a notice somewhere with the comprehensive explanations provided elsewhere in the thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2010 10:53

tsarkar wrote:Teg, whose construction adjusted USD 1 billion penalty payable by Russia for defects in the Talwar class and the tankers.

From what i have read the penalty amount runs to couple of million. The penalty paid for the delay in Talwar class frigate was mutually agreed at $20 million link

The 3 new Teg frigate under construction will cost ~ $1.5 - 1.6 billion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2010 11:42

just some details in Tu-142ME upgrade

Upgraded ASW aircraft Tu-142ME was delivered to Indian Navy

Long-range ASW aircraft Tu-142ME was handed over to India after overhaul and modernization by JSC TAVIA. In 2010 another Tu-142ME will be also capitally repaired, upgraded, and delivered to Indian Navy, reported ITAR-TASS referring to the company's press service.

. All of those aircrafts are in need of capital repairs and to be upgraded with new onboard equipment, modernized jet-prop engines, and new weapons. According to initial plan, all 8 planes were supposed to pass modernization within 6 years and be ready in 2010-2011. After capital repairs the service life of each aircraft becomes 16 years longer.

Upgraded Tu-142ME is capable to provide patrolling and security of territorial waters; conduct communications surveillance; search, track, and engage newest silent submarines on surface and under water, moving at full or slow speed or laying on the seabed day and night and in any weather conditions. While armed with guided missiles, Tu-142ME is capable to deliver strikes upon surface ships, land and coastal targets.

Max flight range of Tu-142ME is 12,000 km, max flight speed (weight of 138 tons, altitude of 7,000 meters) is 855 kph, cruising speed is 735 kph, flight duration is 9 hours. Max combat load (6 BrahMos cruise missiles, as was proposed to Indian Navy) makes 9.6 tons, standard combat load (8 Kh-35 antiship missiles) is 4.4 tons. Typical search-and-attack version of the aircraft is equipped with up to 140 radio sonobuoys.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2010 11:46

Indian ships head for Africa

Task unit of Indian Navy's western fleet ships INS Mysore, Tabar, Ganga, and Aditya sailed off Mumbai heading for Africa, reports Press Trust of India referring to an official from Indian defense ministry.

During the 2-month long cruise Indian ships will hold joint exercises with navies and Coast Guards of such African countries as Tanzania, Kenya, Republic of South Africa, Seychelles, and Mauritius.

In Sept warships of Indian, Brazilian, and South African navies will conduct annual trilateral exercise IBSAMAR.

Also, the Indian ships will make port calls at various countries like South Africa and Mozambique.

The joint exercises are meant to promote friendly relations and practice interoperability between Indian Navy and other participating navies. Besides, the cruise will increase readiness of the Indian warships for long-term stay in high seas far away from home ports.

One month ago Indian Navy's eastern fleet ships started a 2-month cruise to Southeast Asia and Pacific Ocean, and visited ports of Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, and Australia.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2010 14:45

Excellent news about the TU-142 upgrades.In fact if we are able to acquire another 4+,it would be perfect,as the aircraft can carry the air-launched versions of Brahmos when available.With an inventory of around 12+,we could have at least 6-8 of them available always.What would also be a wise buy is more Il-38s which have also been upgraded with the Sea Dragon ASW system.The range of the "Bears" is unmatched by any other LRMP and the aircraft is still being used as a strategic bomber and for LRMP ops by Russia.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 27 Aug 2010 15:20

Philip wrote:This news is about 2 years old. The CAG and IN have been screaming themselves hoarse about the looming sub inventory/operational crisis,but the great leadership of Dr.Singh has only one thought in its mind,signing the N-deal in favour of foreign suppliers and signing away India's independence in nuclear tech,and our foreign and defence policies!

The Scorpene deal is in troubled waters,a sad spectacle,with three price escalations,hopelessly negotiated and termed, and now suffering delays of a few years with propbably even more escalation to follow.Despite the "sting" of the Scorpene,the MOD/GOI have still not decided upon the second line of subs to be built.If the IN is looking for Even the Scorpenes were not initially meant to possess AIP systems despite the fact that the PN's French Agosta-90Bs would eventually all have a MESMA AIP system.How we could acquire a later model French sub with inferior underwater endurance than Pak's AIP Agostas beats me.

If the IN is looking for the best and latest in conventional sub concepts,then as a senior British expert said,"you will never get it,as it will arrive late, cost far more than its budgeted price and not meet designed operational standards when it finally arrives..",or words to that effect.There is little point at this critical juncture trying to find the "Rolls-Royce" of conventional AIP subs for India.It would be far more practical to boost our operational capability with more subs of the kind in service or their latest models available.This is just what the IAF is doing by upgrading all existing types of aircraft in service and buying/building more Su-30MKIs.

There are two practical options now available to the IN.One,acquire German U-214 AIP subs,the follow on to the U-209s which we have.Germany has some which were meant for Greece,with the fact that these subs will not be able to carry a multi-purpose family of missiles like the Klub,aboard our modernised Kilos.Two,buy either new Kilos from Russia,as Venezuela,Vietnam and possibly Indonesia are doing,or buy the newer Amur,the version that can launch Brahmos.Russian sub-building yards can deliver subs at a very fast rate and within 5 years we would be able to posssibly have 3 in service.Another two Akulas simultaneously acquired as ATVs launched, would also be ideal to complement the ATV/SSBN inventory.

One must also mention the woeful absence of a DSRV in IN service,relying upon foreign air-portable rescue vessels days away if a crisis develops,and the equally important requirement for UUVs,which can either operate independently or from a mother sub.These would be very useful in sanitising our coastline and key ports and naval bases.

The situation is critical given the massive sub-building programme that the PLAN is engaged upon and the IN and its senior officers,retd. chiefs,defence analysts,think tanks,etc.,should pressurise the GOI and its apparently deaf PM and DM,that they cannot be indifferent to the nation's security and that of the IN's fast depleting underwater capability any longer.

Get L& T in to complete the scorpene order quicker. But would the MOD or the GOI accept that? Dont think so.The stranglehold of the DRDO and associated govt agencies is to strong. THE MOD should come up with a policy that says for any project that a govt agency is contracted to build they should have a private partner.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2010 13:23

Incidentally,posted in the Intl.news thread,reports of Russian Akulas tracking down RN Trident SSBNs as they did during Cold War days.While some reports mention details of the arriving Akula,the Chakra,with inferior specs when compared with Russian Akulas,this could be disinformation,as generally,Russian defence systems obtained by India have special specs not proviuded in usual export orders to other friendly nations.This has been done so that Indian usage of Russian weapon sytems,especially in the tropics,has allowed Russian designers to further improve and perfect their systems.The Chakra,which has been complete while newer Russian sub-technology has been available might even have some indigenous input/systems common to the ATV,if training nuclear sub crews is the key priority for the sub.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 13:30

Thinking out loud,

Do we know the budget for the development of the ATV 1,2 & 3. If the budget is not declared, then what is the possibility that the funds are being alloacated through price escalations in the known projects, such as the scorpean. Also 50000 crs for the 6 boats of the Project 75 is as if they have gold plated the SSK for the IN. Could it be that they are going for 6 additional nuke boats and have budgeted that amount accordingly.

Just some random thoughts in the absence of clarity (News media) on this topic..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Aug 2010 18:34

I don't think that we will ever know the cost of an ATV excluding development costs.However,if a large part of the sub is sourced from within the country where L&Ts labour costs are also less than those in the west,plus many key components and weaponry are also obtained from Russia,we may find that an Indian built nuclear powered ATV compares very favourably with that of a western conventional AIP sub.This is looking at the cost of a 10yr. Akula-2/3 lease vs the escalating cost of the Scorpenes.Where a conventional AIP sub scores over a larger N-boat is in littoral waters as the US has found out,after leasing a much smaller Swedish AIP boat.Therein lies the continued attraction for such a type,plus coming in with a cheaper price.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 21:21

Philip,

I understand the thrust of your post, but still have trouble accepting that the IN will spend 11 billion dollars on just 6 conventional boats. The boats must be worth their weight in gold if that's what is going to happen.

The recent Vietnamese SSK purchase amounts to approx 300 Million $ per boat for 6 boats.

I cannot accept that IN will be made to pay that amount for conventional boats. Just how advanced the boats have to be to cost that much.

Or they are including the cost of kick backs as well in the overall price of the project. If they are indeed conventional boats.

JMT

Patrick Cusack · Post by **Patrick Cusack** » 28 Aug 2010 21:58

TU-142ME is an awesome weapon of mass destruction - In case of an attack against India it can be a launch platform for longrange cruise missiles against both China, Pakistan and other neighbors who join the ChiPak coalition against India.

8 of these - truly awesome. Awesome range and multi-purpose. No other aircraft offers such flexibility in use.

No air force will give up such aircraft - B52's in the US airforce and Tu-95/142 in USSR's have gone through so many upgrades and still flying. If I remember UK's Vulcans and Victors are still serviceable.

Fantastic choice and sensible decision by India.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 28 Aug 2010 22:53

Pratyush wrote:Philip,

I understand the thrust of your post, but still have trouble accepting that the IN will spend 11 billion dollars on just 6 conventional boats. The boats must be worth their weight in gold if that's what is going to happen.

The recent Vietnamese SSK purchase amounts to approx 300 Million $ per boat for 6 boats.

I cannot accept that IN will be made to pay that amount for conventional boats. Just how advanced the boats have to be to cost that much.

Or they are including the cost of kick backs as well in the overall price of the project. If they are indeed conventional boats.

JMT

The Vietnamese purchase was of Kilos without any modification's. IMHO IN is looking for larger sub custom made with bramos and AIP along with TOT. Which may in all purpose justify the cost.

The Navy hasn't even issued a RFI, and people here started talking about Kickbacks in deal. Just see the Australian sub building program for cost reference.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Aug 2010 05:58

Indian Navy to operate UAVs for a brief period from Porbandar

by the year end something should happen in this regard. The Indian Navy plans to temporarily operate UAVs from Porbandar, where it has built a hangar for them at the civilian airport. They will be brought from its UAV Squadron at Kochi which has Searcher MK II and Heron in the inventory. A decision on the positioning of UAVs in Porbandar will be taken by the Indian Navy later in the year. The Indian Coast Guard already has a full-fledged air enclave at Porbandar from where it operates its manned flights for maritime reconnaissance and search and rescue operations.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Aug 2010 09:16

Vishnu, What kind of modification which will cost 6 times the cost of a Vietnamese Kilo. As it exists. Unless they are using pure pres-sous meteal in the hull. It is too expensive a boat. If it is an SSK is what they are looking at.

If they are looking at a SSN they one can still except the proposed cost. But for a SSK??

Please ask you self why pay 1.8 billion $ approx per boat.

I have studied the Collins class design and the problems faced by it. BTW the Collins cost is in AUS $ and not US $. So the In costs and Aussie costs are not comparable.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 29 Aug 2010 17:35

It depends up on the requirements of Navy. We are still unaware what IN has asked for.

The point is if IN is paying the amount that you have quoted for a Kilo, then we can say the amount is being wasted. But Still we don't know what IN wants.

It could be a Super SSK with capability to fire brahmos and AIP, ability to operate AUV's etc with Complete TOT. There could be SSGN and SSK variants of the same design.

I was referring to replacement program for the collins.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 30 Aug 2010 00:57

Navy torpedoes Indian private shipyards' role in new project.

This is the first of a four-part special series on the country’s critical, yet significantly delayed, submarine development programme.

A far-reaching decision by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will come as a jolt for domestic shipbuilders in the private sector seeking to participate in India’s submarine programme. Top sources in the ministry have told Business Standard that its apex defence acquisition council has decided to exclude Indian private shipyards from the construction of six submarines for the Indian Navy under Project 75I. Instead, the first two submarines will be built at a foreign shipyard.

Project 75I initially envisaged all six submarines to be built in India. The MoD-owned Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, was to build three; Hindustan Shipyard Ltd — recently acquired by the MoD from the Ministry of Shipping — would build one; while Indian private sector shipyards L&T and Pipavav would compete to build two. But the navy’s insistence on having the first two submarines built abroad has torpedoed the private sector shipbuilders out of the picture.

The navy’s decision, explained a senior admiral on condition of anonymity, stems from delays that have been endemic to indigenous submarine construction. India bought four HDW submarines in the 1980s. HDW’s shipyard in Germany built two of them in just 56 months each. In contrast, Mazagon Dock took 98 months and 116 months to build the remaining two. Mazagon Dock is also running 30 months late in delivering the first of six Scorpene submarines that it was contracted to build under Project 75.

“At least two submarines will come in quickly by building them abroad,” said the admiral. “We are desperately short of submarines.” A performance audit of the navy by the Comptroller and Auditor General has documented that just seven or eight of India’s 15 submarines are operational at any given time against a projected requirement of at least 24.

Yet, curiously, despite the dismal track record of Mazagon Dock, the defence acquisition council has decided to hand it a prime role in Project 75I as well. While the cost of Project 75I is still not known, it will substantially exceed the Rs 23,562 crores that India paid French companies Armaris and DCNS for Project 75, since building two submarines abroad will inflate the cost.

Furthermore, that decision will require fresh sanction from the Cabinet Committee on Security — typically involving a 12-24-month delay — since the current sanction mandates that all the submarines must be built in India.

Only after that will a tender be issued to identify a foreign technology partner. Among the possible bidders for the contract are Russia’s Amur Shipbuilding Plant, Germany’s HDW, Spain’s Navantia, Italy’s Fincantieri, and France’s DCNS.

In 1999, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved a 30-year plan for 24 conventional submarines to be constructed in India. This sanctioned two simultaneous construction lines: six using western technology; and six based on Russian knowhow. After that, 12 indigenously-designed submarines were to be built.

The navy believes that Russian submarines have greater endurance, firepower and strategic utility, while western submarines are stealthier and, therefore, harder to detect. It was reasoned that Indian designers would adopt the best of both traditions when designing the 12 indigenous submarines.

Private companies such as L&T and Pipavav have invested thousands of crores of rupees to build world-class shipyards, and have lobbied intensely for a share of the submarine programme. Over the last decade, L&T has played a central role in building and outfitting the nuclear-powered INS Arihant, and will do so for its two successor vessels.

Senior L&T officials have argued that Mazagon Dock would have its hands full with Scorpene production until at least 2019 and has no capacity to take on another three submarines. But the MoD has presented a detailed plan for the shipyard to set up a second submarine line.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Aug 2010 07:03

Vishnu,

The navy is already close to paying close to a billion $s for the Scorpeans and yet the boats are no where close to be ready. If you look at the prespectiove candidates for the P75I. none of the boats are nearly as capable as to cost 1.8billion US$. The max const will be 600 Million $.

Moreover, if they have already designed and build the Arihant, then it goes without saying that India has the capability of building Capable Subs (Please dont call it a prototype, Subs dont have prototypes. They have to perform right from the first dive.). Why not use subsystems from that.

The argument that I am makeing is that there are sufficient domestic resourses availabe in India that it can be done for lesser price. But the navy is not doing so.

Also look at the news report in the post above mine. What is the strange logic given by the for not using a domestic private yard IN. That the private yard will delay the production of the Boat. When most of the delays have taken place at MDL.

Truly twisted thinking.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Aug 2010 09:59

Pratyush wrote: <SNIP>
Also look at the news report in the post above mine. What is the strange logic given by the for not using a domestic private yard IN. That the private yard will delay the production of the Boat. When most of the delays have taken place at MDL.

Truly twisted thinking.

Care to point out where it says that IN insisted that Private Shipyards be excluded from P75I? All that it says is that IN wants first two submarines to be build abroad - to ensure that it has the necessary number of ships and there are less/no delays. You have interpreted it as IN not wanting Private Shipyards to be part of this - and of course, our dear Colonel comes out with a sensational headline. As is the norm on BRF these days, any such news and Services automatically become the culprit.

Please answer these questions - Why did the MOD insist on MDL and HSL having a go at the development? Why could not it get the L&T or Pipavav to parallely compete for the manufacture of 2 subs in addition to the foreign manufacture? We could have had faster induction rate of subs that way.

What is the delivery schedule of the MDL@ Scorpene and how long will it take for MDL and HSL to commense production of P75I Subs? Will production start after foreign yard has started building P75I or in parallel?

Let us stop bashing services at drop of aq hat.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Aug 2010 10:25

A far-reaching decision by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will come as a jolt for domestic shipbuilders in the private sector seeking to participate in India’s submarine programme. Top sources in the ministry have told Business Standard that its apex defence acquisition council has decided to exclude Indian private shipyards from the construction of six submarines for the Indian Navy under Project 75I. Instead, the first two submarines will be built at a foreign shipyard.

Project 75I initially envisaged all six submarines to be built in India. The MoD-owned Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, was to build three; Hindustan Shipyard Ltd — recently acquired by the MoD from the Ministry of Shipping — would build one; while Indian private sector shipyards L&T and Pipavav would compete to build two. But the navy’s insistence on having the first two submarines built abroad has torpedoed the private sector shipbuilders out of the picture.

Amounts to the same thing. Also whenever the production will start, MDL cannot produce the boats before 2019, the HSL cannot be involved until the ATV project is not complted. Then where is the space availabe with the PSU yards. This is a golden opportunity to involve the Private yards. But they will not be involved. The excuse given will be that they lack the experience.

Also the biggest grouse that I have is the cost of the boats. If they are building nuke boats then it makes sense. But for DE boats even with AIP, Approx 7000 cr re per boat is just too much.

The only way this cost will make sence is that they are involving a foriegn design beauro to help then design a NUKE hunter killer boat along with all the tech involved. But this is just speculation on my part. All reports indiacate that this amount is for DE boats with AIP.

JMT

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 30 Aug 2010 10:38

India badly needs submarines, never mind escalating costs on building it overseas, we had to get it delivered on time, and in this case Indian Navy is wisely opting for foreign build for the first two, just to speed up delivery. I would leave it to the wise mind of Navy to decide in this case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Aug 2010 11:04

The IN apprehension to build all the 6 sub in Indian SY is justifiable in the light of the delay that MDL has done with Scorpene project , they do not want to risk more delays with P-75I and they would like the selected model SY deliver the first 2 sub as quickly as they can.

The second line of sub is more complex project as they come with AIP and perhaps even a VLS launcher , an experience hand can deliver the project much quicker.

It would be a big mistake to keep private SY specially L&T away from building this project , we are better off with one less Govt SY and give Private companies like L&T the opportunity to deliver the project on time and cost.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 30 Aug 2010 11:23

I have always had this lingering doubt.
What is fair price for a weapons system?

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 30 Aug 2010 11:29

This is probably the IN's reaction to the govts decision to give the bulk of the construction to govt shipyards and give the private shipyard's just one measly sub to build. The IN has enough experience with the delays by govt owned shipyard's. Cant understand the Defence ministry trumpeting that pvt industry should take a more active role in defence , while when it comes to awarding contracts they are just baised in favour of govt entities.

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 30 Aug 2010 11:52

ShivaS wrote:I have always had this lingering doubt.
What is fair price for a weapons system?

Buying it cheaper than the enemy?
Priced lower than the competition?
Having sufficient offset?
Price to make it sanction proof ?

etc.....etc...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Aug 2010 11:53

Austin Bhai,

As far as the VLS is concerned, isn't the Arihant already equiped with one to launch the Surya, also the Brahmos is designed to be fired from the sub VLS. Then that by it self should not be the main factor for increasing the costs. The sonar systems and the quietening technology for the sub would have been understood with the Arihant design. So why the need to spend billions of US $ on a foreign design.

That is what I am questioning.

Probably I am seeing parallels between IA armur acquisition and the IN sub acquisition. Also, when you are going to have only 24 boats (As per the 1999 approval )then what is the point of having 3 separate designs. Why the need to create a museum of boats.

On Russian one Western and one Indian. Especially, when the IN designers have demonstrated the competence to design the boat and its subsystems already with the Arihant. Or was it just an empty shell. That is 20 years from active service.

Also has the 1999 plan taken into consideration the Arihant and its sisters. The In needs to rethink the sub blueprint seriously.

JMT.

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 30 Aug 2010 12:11

Willy wrote:...Cant understand the Defence ministry trumpeting that pvt industry should take a more active role in defence , while when it comes to awarding contracts they are just baised in favour of govt entities.

Defense Minister is a political appointee. Prime Minster is a political appointee and so is the entire cabinet. Their responsibility is Far Far greater than the Indian Navy's. You may like or dislike a politician/Political Party but the fact remains they have no choice but the see the BIG Picture.

If Govt. don't hand over contracts to govt. companies, you can be sure that private players sure as hell wont give orders. These PSU's/Docks are a govt. creations and now they have been created, govt. has a responsibility to help them survive.

A lot of competent / incompetent people work in these organisations who has families to feed, kids to educate, daughters to get married off. There are no short cuts, just a long winding path to private participation to Private participation.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 30 Aug 2010 12:12

No not for the buyer price.

MSRP ---> Maximum suggested retail price.

Russia as USSR used to sell by weight.

Unkil gives them as grant or gift and squeezes balls some other way (there is no free lunch with unkil) or sells them with price discrimenation (but generally abhors kickbacks directly)

The French and British will fleece.

so better make at home or you go back to the story of Vikramaditya ex Groshkov..

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 30 Aug 2010 12:14

SO public sector is funded for private affairs... ahh got it now.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Aug 2010 13:22

Pratyush wrote:Austin Bhai,

As far as the VLS is concerned, isn't the Arihant already equiped with one to launch the Surya, also the Brahmos is designed to be fired from the sub VLS. Then that by it self should not be the main factor for increasing the costs.

While Austin can answer for himself, please answer these questions and do keep them in mind while formulating your opinion:

(a) Which DE Submarine design has VL Launch Capability? If the answer is none and that the SY will have to undertake major redesign to cater to India's requirement, who will foot this bill and how much will this cost?

(b) What has the VL Launch capability of Brahmos got to do with P-75I Design? Does the ability of Missile automatically translate into ability of the submarine? If the designer has to customize the Submarine Deisgn as per Indian's request to be able to fire Brahmos again, who do you think will foot the bill?

(c) Again, what has design of Arihant and it's ability to fire XYZ Missile got to do with DE Submarine design? How does it automatically confer the ability on India to design and operationalize a DE Submarine in the required time frame? By extension of your logic, India should be able to manufacture something like SU-30 (in requisite timeframe) because we have developed LCA. And is the Arihant design proven (and I'm not referring to reactor here) ? How long will it take for the total system to shaken down and prove itself?

The sonar systems and the quietening technology for the sub would have been understood with the Arihant design. So why the need to spend billions of US $ on a foreign design.

That is what I am questioning.

All your're doing is casting aspersions and raising stink where none exist.

How do you know that the Sonar will not be Indian? For all you know, if the IN feels the system on offer is not significantly superior to home grown system, we may have a local product on the P-75I Submarines.

As for the local design, you're over simplyfying the issue at hand.

Probably I am seeing parallels between IA armur acquisition and the IN sub acquisition. Also, when you are going to have only 24 boats (As per the 1999 approval )then what is the point of having 3 separate designs. Why the need to create a museum of boats.

On Russian one Western and one Indian. Especially, when the IN designers have demonstrated the competence to design the boat and its subsystems already with the Arihant. Or was it just an empty shell. That is 20 years from active service.

There is no parallel here - simply figment of your imagination because instead of subjecting your thoughts to serious questioning and analysis, you're posting what ever comes to your mind.

As for the three different boat types, this is what happens when we short sighted people at the helm and acqusitions happen in piece meal. And when the domestic industry has not taken off. If the HDW thing was not torpedoed, for all you know, the follow on subs would have been U-214 Class of boats

Each acquisition presents the best in class (for the said time) and our purchasing ability (money+geo-politics). It was Kilo and Scorpene earlier, it will be XYZ this time. It is same to the various Classes of Submarined in US or USSR/Russia Service - except that they build in large numbers and build it themselves.

And as I said earlier, design of Arihant does not confer upon India the ability to design a Submarine from scratch and induct the same in required timelines and numbers. May be , if GOI is prudent enough, the next 12 Submarined after Scorpene and
P-75I will be Indian - and for this, the efforts need to laucnhed as of yesterday. So that technology validation and production can happen in expected timeframe.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2010 13:32

If one looks carefully at the options,both Scorpenes and German U-boats cannot carry Brahmos.The maximum that they can achieve,with modifications,is to be able to carry Klub,which our Kilos already do.Brahmos and Nirbhay-in the future,will be far more devastating than any western missile barring Tomahawk (unavailable) which is well proven but subsonic.Therefore the ideal option should be to acquire a Russian sub,Amur or modified Kilo,with a Brahmos VLS missile compartment and ideally also with an AIP module.When the Talwars can all be built in Russia,why not with the 75I project too? What is the great sanctity in building it in India?The IN wants capability at sea first rather than the ability to build such a sub.We are already designing and building (with Russian help) an ATV series with both SSBN and SSGN designs to be locally built,The Scorpene proogramme is the second local sub-building programme.We do not have the human and tech. resources in the PSU shipyards to establish yet another line and if we are not letting private players into building such subs (very foolishly,but private yards have no track record to give the IN confidence that they can be built to high quality and arrive on time),then we must import them from abroad.Having all built abroad will ensure cost-effectiveness and a shorter time to build all,giving the IN what it needs urgently.We can then focus our financial and human resources into perfecting developing and building our own nuclear subs and conventional AIP subs (Scorpene) under licence before we get too ambitious.Our dismal track record of sub-building and upgrading,leaves us with little alternative.

Excerpt from the Bus.Std. article:

In 1999, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved a 30-year plan for 24 conventional submarines to be constructed in India. This sanctioned two simultaneous construction lines: six using western technology; and six based on Russian knowhow. After that, 12 indigenously-designed submarines were to be built.

The navy believes that Russian submarines have greater endurance, firepower and strategic utility, while western submarines are stealthier and, therefore, harder to detect. It was reasoned that Indian designers would adopt the best of both traditions when designing the 12 indigenous submarines.

Private companies such as L&T and Pipavav have invested thousands of crores of rupees to build world-class shipyards, and have lobbied intensely for a share of the submarine programme. Over the last decade, L&T has played a central role in building and outfitting the nuclear-powered INS Arihant, and will do so for its two successor vessels.

Senior L&T officials have argued that Mazagon Dock would have its hands full with Scorpene production until at least 2019 and has no capacity to take on another three submarines. But the MoD has presented a detailed plan for the shipyard to set up a second submarine line.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -cuts.html

An interesting report that Britain might be scrapping plans to buy the STOVL version of the JSF for cost reasons.With a dwindling defence budget,scrapping the STOVL versions in favour of catapults and CTOL carriers will also bring RN carriers into interoperability with western/US carriers.This should also be carefully studied by the IN,which is going in for STOBAR carriers ,with possible larger carriers after IAC-1being built at Cochin.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 30 Aug 2010 14:09

I was at friends place on saturday for lunch. His father was retired GM of BHPV. After a little small talk I asked him about any participation in submarine production by BHPV. He said a number of times we machine components for the submarine project. In addition BHPV deputes skilled welders from its shops on need basis.

I wish L&T, Tatas, Bharat Forge, DLW Varanasi, BHEL HEC ranchi should all partner and build a prototype no matter even if the design is not bleeding edge, they could atleast be used in Sub warfare training to Seamen, Sailors and also use for costal defense.

Even if they are of the design kind shown below.

***********

Here is DLW Alco design Diesel engine which could be modified to make Diesel electric submarine.

Engine size of WDM2 Railway engine.
Installed Power 4000 HP
Height approx 3000mm
Width approx 2000 mm
Weight approx 60 T
Overall Length aprox 8000mm

Typical Diesel electric Propulsion 1375 Hp - 1300 RPM - 415 V DC - 2600
BHEL largest DC motor: 2500 kW DC Motor 3335 HP

Specs of existing Kilo Class:
Dimensions:
Length: 70–74 meters 74000 mm
Beam: 9.9 meters 99000 mm
Draft: 6.2-6.5 meters 65000 mm
Propulsion: Diesel-electric 5,900 shp (4,400 kW)
Maximum depth: 300 meters (240–250 meters operational
***
Typical lay out
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/diesel/img/fig1-14.jpg

WWII Sub

Siemens DC motor for Sub

If I win a lotto
I will buy a reeking Russian Sub shell and with COTS in India I can build a Sub IMVHO

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2010 14:42

The Scorpene deal's "sting in the tail".Stratpage on the mess thanks to babudom.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 00828.aspx

Scorpene Stumbles Towards The Finish Line
Excerpt:

August 28, 2010: India's effort to build French Scorpene submarines, under license, has been further delayed, and the price has now gone up to $5 billion ($834 million each). While this effort will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines, that will be wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials already caused numerous delays, and cost overruns, during negotiations to build the six Scorpene diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats have mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is nearly three years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started. The delays and mismanagement have so far increased the cost of the $4 billion project by 25 percent. The first Scorpene is supposed to enter service in two years, with one a year after that until all six are delivered.
There's some urgency to all this, because by 2012......Two years after that, India will only have five working subs.

But the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade, and it wasn't until 2005 that India signed a deal to buy six French Scorpene class boat. The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components, and India has had some problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. While some problems were expected (India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades), the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work, or just getting in the way.

The Scorpenes are similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan recently bought. The first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in Pakistan. The Scorpene purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation between a French and a Spanish firm. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 21 inch torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried.) The Scorpene is a little heavier (1700 tons), has a smaller crew (32) and is a little faster. It has six 21 inch torpedo tubes, and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). The Pakistanis have an option to retrofit AIP in their current two Agostas.

Both of these modern subs are very lethal weapons against surface warships. With well trained crews, Agostas and Scorpenes can get close to just about any surface ship, no matter how good the defenders' anti-submarine defenses are. But it's the AIP boats that are the real killers. Without AIP, subs spend most of their time just below surface, using their noisy diesel engines (via a snorkel device that breaks the surface to take in air, and get rid of the engine exhaust.) Snorkels can be spotted by modern maritime patrol aircraft, and both nations are getting more of these. The noise of the diesel engines can easily be picked up by other subs. The introduction of the Agostas and Scorpenes was seen as an escalation in the naval arms race between Pakistan and India.

While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani boats, both because of less advanced technology, and less well trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to expand their naval presence into the Indian ocean. Thus the delays and cost overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. But at the rate India is going, it will be nearly a decade before all six of the Scorpenes are in service. At that point, India would have about a dozen subs (including nuclear powered models' under construction). China will have over 60 boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear.