Indian Naval Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8309
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 30 Aug 2010 14:57

rohitvats wrote:
(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?

So that justifies a 3 fold increase in cost over a scorpean and 6 fold over a kilo.


(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?

None of the off the shelf designs as available can fire Brahmos due to the small size of the boat. If the design is to be customised then the cost goes by 3 to 6 times is what is being questioned. I hope that can be understood.


(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?

Please tell me other then propulsion what is the difference between a nuke sub and DE before this discussion can proceed further.

As for the ability to manufacture some thing like SU 30, then the answer is yes. Why? if the LCA is completed and all parts of the aircraft were designed inhouse. The human resources needed to to the job are available in house as are the industrial resources. Every thing needed to get it done is available. All that needs to be doen is to design and integrate the various components needed to do the job.

If it cannot be done then there is some thing wrong with the decision making processes of the nation. I will point you to the Original MCA design which was hosted on the BRF for this purpose. No doubt you are aware of it.


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.

Nither, If you think I am doing it then it is in your mind. PS I am within my rights to question the decisions of the GOI where ever I find them questionable. This whole deal is questionable IMO.


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.

How so please educate the uneducated.


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.

You need to read the word probably in my post again. Also the bold section is uncalled for. Defending the procurement decisions of the services is admirable but please be objective and slightly more tolerent of those who are questioning the decisions made by GOI.


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

No Comments, for the firs part of the paragraph. For the underlined section how will the domestic industry take off. Please educate this poor abdul.



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.


I have asked before i ask again, quote]Please tell me other then propulsion what is the difference between a nuke sub and DE before this discussion can proceed further




Rohit my responces are in red.

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vishnu.nv » 30 Aug 2010 15:45

Pratyush,

As rohit told you, If we need to customize a existing design as per our needs we need to pay more.
Now i have stated many things that IN would ask for which could bring up the price of the sub.

Now you point is to build SSN or SSGN for that cost is debatable. Let me ask you some Questions in return.

1)Is IN having a SSN Design with them. If yes how long will it take to put them in to production?
2)How Long IN can wait for the ingenious SSN to come?

The answers to these two questions will solve your query.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8309
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 30 Aug 2010 16:03

Vishnu,

1)Is IN having a SSN Design with them. If yes how long will it take to put them in to production?
Ans; I don't know. What I do know is that P 75I will not hit the water before 2019. If the design activities start now, using the Arihant template, the design can be made ready quite quickly (next 2 to 3 years.) Producing it will take another 5 to 6 years. That is close to the time frame of the P75I. (Unless the Arihant it self was an empty shell. Missing any critical technologies.)

2)How Long IN can wait for the ingenious SSN to come?

Ans. If the first P75I hits the water by 2019 as planed in the project . The SSN proposed by me should hit the water by 2020. if the plan is authorized today.

I hope you are able to see what I am seeing. Though,I am open to the idea of being told that I am smoking some thing potent. Thinking that a follow on design using the Arihant templet can hit the water in 10 years from the go ahead.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2010 16:33

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

MTU Engines of similar Power output haveing approx dimensions (LxBxH) of 2M x 1.8M x 1.8 M is already being used as main propulsion units onboard IN surface vessels.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shukla » 30 Aug 2010 19:14

Pilots being made air-ready for INS Vikramaditya

The defence ministry has begun the process of getting Indian fighter pilots ready to operate from aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, which is expected to be inducted into the Indian Navy in the next two years, an official said Monday. The chairman of the Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL), Vineet Bakshi, said the defence ministry-certified shipyard was in the process of setting up a shore-based testing facility (SBTF) for future pilots in Goa, in partnership with the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA).

"This unique test facility is being set up with technology and specialised equipment from Russia. This facility will enable future pilots to be trained ashore before they fly the war planes from aircraft carrier Vikramaditya," Bakshi, a former rear admiral said. He said pilots flying the MIG-29 fighters would also be trained at the facility being built at the naval base INS Hansa in Goa. The navy veteran further said that the SBTF would also enable Indian Navy's indigenously developed light combat aircraft (LCA) "to reach its logical operational capabilities".

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 30 Aug 2010 21:51

Pratyush wrote:
(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?

So that justifies a 3 fold increase in cost over a scorpean and 6 fold over a kilo.


So, basically, you don't know about the parameters which might have led to the 3X projected cost of P-75I Submarines. Neither did you deem it necessary to try and answer that question. But felt confident to cry conspiracy and import fetish of Services and associated drivel.

There is very less information available on the subject matter to come to even informed dicision, let alone pass sweeping comments and judgement on the Services. Rather than pass judgement, it would have been great if you'd tried to answer those questions.

(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?

None of the off the shelf designs as available can fire Brahmos due to the small size of the boat. If the design is to be customised then the cost goes by 3 to 6 times is what is being questioned. I hope that can be understood.


Whether the design goes up only because of desire to fit Brahmos or XYZ Land Attack Missile or ToT or color of the submarine, is the question that needs to be answered by proper analysis. And questioning and implying a ulterior motive are not the same thing - which you have done. That is the point I'm trying to make.

(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?

Please tell me other then propulsion what is the difference between a nuke sub and DE before this discussion can proceed further.


Oh! good sir, I'm no technical expert. It is you who has passed expert judgement and reached a conclusion. Please tell me this: What do we know about the Arihant programme? Who designed the sub? Is any public source info available on the source of sub design+propulsion+sensor suite+Combat management system? It is you who has reached a conclusion about the inherent capabilities of India wrt Submarine tech - in total absence of any data points. So, it is your opinion which you're passing off as facts.

Nither, If you think I am doing it then it is in your mind. PS I am within my rights to question the decisions of the GOI where ever I find them questionable. This whole deal is questionable IMO.


Questionable because you've raised couple of points based on scant info on the net? And have generic assumptions which themselves have no basis in facts but opinions?

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

How so please educate the uneducated.


Sir, it is you who should show how having designed Arihant (even if we did it) automatically translate into developing DE Submarine - because you claimed it so. And a system (N-Sub) which is itself expected to undergo testing and shake down for couple of years (was it 3 years?).

You need to read the word probably in my post again. Also the bold section is uncalled for. Defending the procurement decisions of the services is admirable but please be objective and slightly more tolerent of those who are questioning the decisions made by GOI.


Please bash the services for all you want - but please put forth some facts and analysis and not off the cuff remarks.

No Comments, for the firs part of the paragraph. For the underlined section how will the domestic industry take off. Please educate this poor abdul.


You should ask MOD to do the needfull and not give preferential treatment to the MDL+DPSU. Why on God's earth is MOD insisting on developing 2nd production line at MDL for domestic production of P-75I? Why can't the L&T or others be allowed to develop? IN only wants those subs. Who builds them is not important to them.

I have asked before i ask again, quote]Please tell me other then propulsion what is the difference between a nuke sub and DE before this discussion can proceed further


You know what, this is quite humorous actually. So, all we need to do is take away the reactor+propulsion, shrink the submarine, fit the diesel propulsion and presto, we have the DE Submarine. Hmmm...do remind the fellows at BDL...they don't think it is that easy to develop a manportable version of Nag or those trying to develop a IFV.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 30 Aug 2010 22:12

I'm no water dog, but here is what I could gather from the reports on the P-75I:

(a) The base number for comparison is Scorpene deal. The last number on the cost I've heard is INR 23,562 crores (Ajai Shukla blog). So, if the planned cost of the P-75I is INR 50,000 crores, that makes it double of the Scorpene Cost and not 3X or whatever. And on top of that, the Scorpene deal was finalized in 2005 plus the escalation wrt certain ToT. How much will inflation itself increase the cost of acquisition - when the agreement is likely to be signed in another 3-4years? That is good 9-10years from Scorpene deal. A simple 5% inflation takes the cost to ~INR 35,000 crores.

(b) Two of the submarines will be built in a foreign yard - this will inflate the cost.

(c) All the six submarines will come AIP - that is some additional ~USD 60millionX3 for the project.

(d) We need the Land Attack Capability - will it be VL Land Attack Brahmos? Or some other missile? We don't know. But the fact remains that any such significant capability will come with cost of redesign - IMO, there is no ready design that can be incorporated into the IN. And we're going to pay for this whole lot.

(e) MOD has planned for additional production line at MDL to cater for two P-75I Submarines to be built there. We don't know whether this cost has been built into the INR 50K crores.

So, there are parameters which will lead to increase in cost. We need to be more patient and see the exact contours of the deal to see how this thing matures.

Added Later (from TOI):

For P-75I, the second line of submarines, the navy was keen on a private domestic shipyard to tie-up with the foreign vendor since it felt MDL was already "overloaded" with orders and quick delivery schedules were "critical".

But the DAC has decided otherwise, holding that the infrastructure and capabilities acquired by MDL in the Scorpene project could not be allowed to go waste. "Let's hope thing go smoothly now, and instead of 10 years, the navy gets its first submarine under P-75I in six to seven years," an official said.
Last edited by rohitvats on 30 Aug 2010 22:21, edited 1 time in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4506
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby putnanja » 30 Aug 2010 22:20

Indian Navy Submarine XO Dies At Sea

Lt Cdr Firdaus D Moghal, Executive Officer of Indian Naval Submarine Shankush (photo) died in an accident at sea off Mumbai this morning.
...
...
During the operation, the officer was also washed overboard and suffered injuries on his forehead. He was subsequently rescued by a Navy helicopter dispatched from INS Shikra (Naval Air Station) at Mumbai. The officer was administered first aid in-flight, but could not be revived. The post mortem report has indicated death by drowning due to an injury.
...
...


RIP sir!! :(

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17051
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 30 Aug 2010 22:35

absolutely terrible news, RIP Sir. my condolences to the family. :(

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manum » 30 Aug 2010 23:06

oh, RIP sir, hopefully family copes up from the loss...

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vishnu.nv » 30 Aug 2010 23:13

Pratyush wrote:Vishnu,

1)Is IN having a SSN Design with them. If yes how long will it take to put them in to production?
Ans; I don't know. What I do know is that P 75I will not hit the water before 2019. If the design activities start now, using the Arihant template, the design can be made ready quite quickly (next 2 to 3 years.) Producing it will take another 5 to 6 years. That is close to the time frame of the P75I. (Unless the Arihant it self was an empty shell. Missing any critical technologies.)

2)How Long IN can wait for the ingenious SSN to come?

Ans. If the first P75I hits the water by 2019 as planed in the project . The SSN proposed by me should hit the water by 2020. if the plan is authorized today.

I hope you are able to see what I am seeing. Though,I am open to the idea of being told that I am smoking some thing potent. Thinking that a follow on design using the Arihant template can hit the water in 10 years from the go ahead.


We all are in a dark side when it comes to arihant program. Where as IN knows better than us, the achieved capabilities acquired through the program. A Nuclear SSN is lot more complex than a DE sub, we have a nuclear reactor and control mechanism apart from numerous other devices needed for a prolonged period of sea endurance. I am no expert when it comes to submarines to comment on what that would be.

Please accept the fact that we don't have expertise in building nuclear submarines. All the techs that are developed through arihant program is still under testing phase. We still doesn't know the level of capabilities achieved through that program. The program for a SSN would follow the arihant program, But that would be as a separate project.

Now design and production SSN in 10 years time, we are not the Uncle Sam or USSR. With Dump babus sitting at all levels of bureaucracy see what happened to scorpion project.

BTB, when IN says the Russian subs having long endurance and strategic value where as western ones have stealth on their side, which sub has the best chance of winning the deal. Is there any Russian-west combined projects?

S-1000 configured with VLS brahmos, AIP will be a good Buy.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Aug 2010 23:54

S1000 is a tiny 56m , 1100 t design per wiki. infact none of amur, s1000, u214 are impressive size not even kilo sized and far cry from collions or oyashio. since 1996, eleven oyashio subs have been built at one/annum like clockwork.

we need atleast a kilo sized sub to accomodate bramhos/nirbay vl + AIP + endurance - 4000t submerged, 3300 t surfaced

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 31 Aug 2010 00:04

latest jmsdf soryu class - 4200t due to addition of aip

http://www.military-today.com/navy/soryu_class.htm

thats bigger than trafalgar ssn iirc

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 31 Aug 2010 00:16

Rohit,
I didn't understand the point you were trying to get across in the following
(b) Two of the submarines will be built in a foreign yard - this will inflate the cost.

Since no additional infrastructure will be needed to prepare the foreign vendor's yard for producing the vendor's design, this is neither expected nor understandable.

Such large acquisitions should be questioned and every aspect debated in a democracy. That is the difference between us and China. Though frivolous debate should be stifled, not every questions should be made to look frivolous.

Is it possible that the large increase is due to nuclear propulsion and that is why private shipyards are being kept out?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Aug 2010 00:36

From the following site:

Description of different steels developed in India for ship building:

http://indiannavy.nic.in/acom.pdf

Specs for DH36 Steel:
ABS AH36 / DH36 / EH36
Chapel Steel offers grades A131 AH36, A131 DH36 and A131 EH36. Like ABS A & B, these grades of steel plate are almost exclusively utilized in the Shipbuilding Industry for the construction of Structural Parts of ships, barges and Marine Equipment. All grades are certified by ABS (American Bureau of Shipbuilding) and represents the Higher Strength Group of ABS. Chapel Steel stock AH36 in the control rolled condition, DH36 in both the control rolled and normalized condition and EH36 in the normalized condition.

Mechanical Properties:
Tensile: 70 to 90 ksi
Yield: 51 ksi min
Elongation: 17 min in 8” 20 min in 2”
Charpy Requirements (LCVN):
AH36: 25 ft/lbs @ 32°F
DH36: 25 ft/lbs @ -4°F
EH36: 25 ft/lbs @ -40°F



Looks like it the requirement for DMR steel for the tanker was a case of oversight. And DMR steel is HSLA type ie high strength low alloy steel specific to India for import substitution.

I havent found the specs for DM R 249 steel except thsi from HEC, Ranchi:

High Impact Steel for DMRL

Two grades of steel 249 A (ABA) and 249 AB2 developed for application in NAVY.
Excellent Mechanical properties of the material achieved which is the manifestation of its internal soundness and cleanliness of steel composition.
Impact test result achieved 170 Joules / cm2
Commercial production of the established grade of steel started.
A mile stone achievement in Indian metallurgy

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby b_patel » 31 Aug 2010 02:53

Please accept the fact that we don't have expertise in building nuclear submarines. All the techs that are developed through arihant program is still under testing phase. We still doesn't know the level of capabilities achieved through that program. The program for a SSN would follow the arihant program, But that would be as a separate project.

Now design and production SSN in 10 years time, we are not the Uncle Sam or USSR. With Dump babus sitting at all levels of bureaucracy see what happened to scorpion project.

What if the new line of submarines is similar to the Brazilian order of Scorpenes? Extensively modified SSK's and the technical know how for SSBN/SSN's? It sounds like a long shot but maybe that's why it is going to cost so much. What would DCNS/Amaris offer? Enhanced/enlarged Scorpenes?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sankum » 31 Aug 2010 03:22


akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby akimalik » 31 Aug 2010 09:56



Hi all, just a simple Question...
By having all our sub-building capabilities in a single area (except perhaps HSL/Vizag), are we not placing our war-fighting capabilities at risk...in the sense that to stop any sub-repairs/manufacture all the enemy has to do is a precision strike at MDL?
Should we not be looking at geographically diversifying our warship building capability?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8309
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 31 Aug 2010 10:16

rohitvats wrote:Whether the design goes up only because of desire to fit Brahmos or XYZ Land Attack Missile or ToT or color of the submarine, is the question that needs to be answered by proper analysis. And questioning and implying a ulterior motive are not the same thing - which you have done. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If questioning the price increase is pointing out ulterior motive in you words and the motive ascribed in my post then yes I have done so.


Oh! good sir, I'm no technical expert. It is you who has passed expert judgement and reached a conclusion. Please tell me this: What do we know about the Arihant programme? Who designed the sub? Is any public source info available on the source of sub design+propulsion+sensor suite+Combat management system? It is you who has reached a conclusion about the inherent capabilities of India wrt Submarine tech - in total absence of any data points. So, it is your opinion which you're passing off as facts.


So are you saying that an architect who has designed and the builder who has constructed a 100 storied office bulding cannot design and bukld a 25 storied building or a 50 storied residentioal complex or a multilevel parking as the skills involved are so seperate that it is beyod there capability. Is that what you are trying to convey.


Questionable because you've raised couple of points based on scant info on the net? And have generic assumptions which themselves have no basis in facts but opinions?


And your defence of this decision is based of facts that are verifiable in the open source.


As for the local design, you're over simplyfying the issue at hand. Sir, it is you who should show how having designed Arihant (even if we did it) automatically translate into developing DE Submarine - because you claimed it so. And a system (N-Sub) which is itself expected to undergo testing and shake down for couple of years (was it 3 years?).


Are you saying that the skills acquired with the Arihant project are so unique that they cannot be trannsferred to a DE boat. Please clarify, cause that is the only thing one will understand.

You know what, this is quite humorous actually. So, all we need to do is take away the reactor+propulsion, shrink the submarine, fit the diesel propulsion and presto, we have the DE Submarine. .


Reducling the viewpoint of another is the surest sigh of the hollow ness of ones own learning. Read your post again and tell me why what you are saying is not feasable. Resorting to rethoric sounds good but please read you post again and see just how hollow your argument really is.

Hmmm...do remind the fellows at BDL...they don't think it is that easy to develop a manportable version of Nag or those trying to develop a IFV.


My responce to the last will be in the munitions thread.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 31 Aug 2010 10:21

Vivek K wrote: Rohit,
I didn't understand the point you were trying to get across in the following
(b) Two of the submarines will be built in a foreign yard - this will inflate the cost.


Since no additional infrastructure will be needed to prepare the foreign vendor's yard for producing the vendor's design, this is neither expected nor understandable.

Such large acquisitions should be questioned and every aspect debated in a democracy. That is the difference between us and China. Though frivolous debate should be stifled, not every questions should be made to look frivolous.

Is it possible that the large increase is due to nuclear propulsion and that is why private shipyards are being kept out?


Vivek, everything being equal, the cost of construction in a foreign Shipyard will be higher - for simple reason that their manpower and associated costs are higher than SDRE. This is something like HAL or Irkutsk built Su-30MKI.

As for infra, afaik, even we have won't need any major rejig - the MDL has been building Scorpene for some time now.

As for debate - there is nothing wrong in it or BRF won't have existed. That is how we learn,right. But to do so without excercising the grey matter is indeed frivolous. We can do more.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 31 Aug 2010 10:35

If questioning the price increase is pointing out ulterior motive in you words and the motive ascribed in my post then yes I have done so.


I guess you've comprehension problem. I said and I quote - "And questioning and implying a ulterior motive are not the same thing - which you have done". You have implied ulterior motives without any know facts or data points and that in my dictionary is pure speculation. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere have you tried to analyze the problem except for making generic statements and passing the same as expert opinion.

So are you saying that an architect who has designed and the builder who has constructed a 100 storied office bulding cannot design and bukld a 25 storied building or a 50 storied residentioal complex or a multilevel parking as the skills involved are so seperate that it is beyod there capability. Is that what you are trying to convey.


You really do have comprehension problems - To use your example, your entire premise is based on assumption(s) that the gentlemen designed the 100 storied building in the first place. How do you know that? What was the level of external 'consultancy' in this project? Has he actually learned enough to go solo? This single argument of yours is a speculation - take away this and your whole argument comes crashing down.

And your defence of this decision is based of facts that are verifiable in the open source.


Sorry, I've not defended the price - simply tried to see if there are parameters which can lead to price escalation. And prime facie, there are.

How about for a change doing some analysis and refuting the points I've tried to analyze? Like, all of them added together do not warrant 2X increase over Scorpene deal? We can then actually gain something from these arguments.

Are you saying that the skills acquired with the Arihant project are so unique that they cannot be trannsferred to a DE boat. Please clarify, cause that is the only thing one will understand.


Nope. All I'm saying is that we don't know what skills and at what level were acquired by the Indian R&D Teams. It is you who has made a gross assumption and based your entire argument on the said line.

This has actually de-generated into H&D match. So my last post on the topic. Let is wait for more data points to come out in public.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 Aug 2010 17:34

Absolutely tragic news of the death of the Shankush's XO.Heartfelt condolences to the family and may he RIP.This death due apparently to his head hitting the hull,may demand a rethink about protective clothing when on deck,especially during rough weather.

I reiterate,we have yet to decide upon the type of sub amnd its design,yet we've already identified MD as the yard to build the sub! This sounds absurd,as MD may not have the technical expertise to build the second line which should have improved specs than the Scorpenes.Secondly,even if we want an improved Scorpene or follow-on French sub,it would be logical to build them after the 6 Scorpenes,having tested and operated the subs earlier.The track record of sub-building at MD/Indian yards is pathetic.If we really want to acquire subs quickly and cheaply,it would be more prudent t build at least 4 in a foreign yard and another 2-4 later in an Indian yard,prefereably in the private sector,so that competition is created between MD/PSU yards and the private player,which should be L&T given its track record in supplying hulls,etc. for the ATV.

We are doing exactly this with the entire Talwar class,where all 6 frigates are being built in Russia.Admittedly there was a delay in commissioning the firt lot due to the Shtil problem,but we imposed a penalty on the builders for the same.Contrast this with the inordinate time it has taken us to build the first frigate of the Shivalik class,which is barely 25% larger than the Talwars and with almost similar capability,apart from the two large ASW helos and improved stealth features.has the GOI/MOD imposed a penalty on MD or any other Indian yard for that matter which has delayed delivering a warship or sub?This is the advantage that we get when placing orders abroad.We can demand and insist upon total quality and performance and impose penalties for any shortfall.It will nenevr happen with any weapon system designed and built in India,where like the CW games,a blank cheque is given to the PSU,with constant budget increases.Building one line of subs at home and another built abroad also puts pressure upon both yards and builders/manufacturers to meet their committments to the letter in order not to lose further orders.

The second line should be an AIP sub that carries approx. 8 Brahmos,with both anti-ship and land attack capabilities,plus 16+ torps,or a combination of torps and options of Klub missiles (all variants,especially the ASW variant),Nirbhay and Shkval.This would require TTs of two sizes as in the Israeli Dolphins,of German design.These subs of approx. Kilo size or slightly larger,would be all-round ocean going subs,able to also operate especially in the Far-East waters off the coast of China,complementing our future fleet of SSGNs.For SSK ops,the slightly smaller Scorpenes and future improved AIP versions,would be the mainstay for ops in the littorals.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 31 Aug 2010 18:31

Where is Austin when you need him?

Any ideas on what sub designs might serve the Indian needs? Thanx.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 31 Aug 2010 18:32

I dont think MOD will be in a position to impose financial penalty on MDL even if they take their own sweet time to deliver , MDL is a PSU and MOD imposing penalty is like taking money from left and giving it to right , it remains with MOD.

With Private Players they can impose such penalty clause and any delay will have impact on the standing and financial position of the company in the market.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17051
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 31 Aug 2010 18:46

I think there is enormous merit in the idea of picking up 4-5 kilo's minus the whiz-bang with just the standard SONAR's and pop-up klubs.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 31 Aug 2010 19:00

rohitvats wrote:Where is Austin when you need him?

Any ideas on what sub designs might serve the Indian needs? Thanx.


For P-75I sub they needed at the minimum a conventional submarine with AIP , From what I understand they have not asked for any VLS capability.

Again displacement of a sub might vary and might not be a good reference on its capability , a double hull sub like Kilo might displace (submerged ) more ( ~ 3000 - 3500 T ) but a Lada which is a single hull and displacing ( ~ 2300 - 2500 T ) offers significantly better over all performance and submerged endurance.

Personally I think the Spanish S-80 is a nice submarine design , it is a large conventional submarine with good growth potential and comes with AIP , it will also offer the best possible logistics, weapons , training commonality with Scorpene SSK with manageable risk.

Right now in the market there is not much of a choice , if IN opts for a custom build big conventional sub design with a foreign partner then it runs into taking maximum risk with an unproven design , will cost more , longer build time but with a greatest learning curve. ( but may end up going the Collins way , not worth the risk for a navy that badly needs a sub today )

So the choice in proven design is between German U-212A , Spanish S-80 and Russian Amur ( 1950 ) the largest in the Amur class , with the German offering the most proven design , operational AIP sub and Russian the largest risk with perpetual in test Lada design with no proven AIP solution. ( although Lada designers argue its the most silent sub out there )

Hard choice for a Navy which prefers to have subs of East and West and swears by it.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 31 Aug 2010 19:10

Rahul M wrote:I think there is enormous merit in the idea of picking up 4-5 kilo's minus the whiz-bang with just the standard SONAR's and pop-up klubs.


Yes it is and I have been advocating it for long , but right now it seems their order books are full with 6 Kilo 636 for Vietnam navy , 3 6363 for Russian Navy and another claimed 2 Improved Kilo for Algeria under construction.

I dont think even if we order it now they can deliver it to us in the time scale we want. Well bad luck we will have to learn to live with the depleting submarine force till such time the Scorpene starts hitting water and pray MDL keeps its revised promise

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 31 Aug 2010 19:43

rohitvats wrote:Vivek, everything being equal, the cost of construction in a foreign Shipyard will be higher - for simple reason that their manpower and associated costs are higher than SDRE. This is something like HAL or Irkutsk built Su-30MKI.

Why would the cost of manufacture in their yards for India be higher than that for Vietnam (all other things being equal)? Granted that additional equipment will add to the cost, the version sold to Vietnam was made in a foreign yard or in Vietnam?

Mihir.D
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 08:50
Location: Land Of Zero :D !

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mihir.D » 31 Aug 2010 20:23

Can't there be other ways to compensate for the shortage in subs ? like MPA etc etc.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 31 Aug 2010 20:27

Vivek K wrote: Why would the cost of manufacture in their yards for India be higher than that for Vietnam (all other things being equal)? Granted that additional equipment will add to the cost, the version sold to Vietnam was made in a foreign yard or in Vietnam?


Arre yaar...what is with posters these days? Why don't people read?

Where has this Vietnam thing come from? All this debate started with Scorpene deal numbers and how P-75I is X times that and how it does not make sense. The example I gave was with respect to Scorpene deal with India. All the six submarines are being manufactured in India. If in the same deal, 2 were manufactured abroad, the cost would have be X+Delta - with X being Scorpene deal number and delta being additional cost being incurred because a foreign SY built those boats.

So, in case of P-75I, if two boats are going to built abroad, that itself will lead to increase in project cost.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 31 Aug 2010 20:29

Austin wrote: For P-75I sub they needed at the minimum a conventional submarine with AIP , From what I understand they have not asked for any VLS capability.

<SNIP>


Thanx.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 31 Aug 2010 20:42

ShivaS wrote: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


The diesel engines of the BG locomotives used in India vary from 2400 - 2600 hp for WDM 2 to 4000 - 4500 hp for WDP 4 / WDG 4 / WDP 4A. WDM 2 is no longer in production

Refer http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-specs.html

These are NOT marine engines hence I would not use them in MY ships. I would prefer to buy from a reputed MARINE DIESEL ENGINE manufacturer like MTU or Wartsila rather than other manufcaturers like Cummnins, Caterplllar, Waukesha, EMD (former GM) etc. Large slow speed diesel engines are a differnet animal all together as compared to diesel engines for cars, trucks, construction equipment / earth moving equipment, railway locomotives etc.

K

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Juggi G » 01 Sep 2010 02:01


Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Arya Sumantra » 01 Sep 2010 02:58

Image

Under Sea-Floor Silos (USFS) for large SLBMs and SLCMs as a deterrent capable of withstanding first-strike

Land based silos are often cited as vulnerable to first strike and a submarine based SLBM both mobile and difficult to locate is considered to be more survivable deterrent for long distance strikes both conventional and “glowing”.

However ssbn or boomers are constrained by their diameter for length of missile(SLBM) they can carry and which in turn affects the range of the carried SLBM and its ability to strike deep within the dragon’s territory and far flung cities.

In this light, Under Sea-Floor Silos(USFS) loaded with very long-range missiles as shown in schematic should be seriously considered along side the boomer/ssbn development.

Advantages

1. There are missiles that come out of water to hit the land based targets but there exists NO long range missile that goes into the water to hit submerged targets like the USFS above. Even if such modifications are developed later they currently do not exist and are not in the mass-produced missiles.

2. Water behaves different to objects penetrating at different speeds. To a swimming diver it may be more compliant but to a high speed projectile such as incoming enemy missile coming to attack the silo it could behave like a concrete. Airliners break into parts when they try to land on the water assuming it as pliant medium. Jet powered motorboats riders racing on water at those speeds describe it as “cutting through sheets of steel”(in their own words). So either the incoming enemy missile targeting the silo-opening could break into fragments upon hitting Sea’s top surface or at the very least the CEP would get ruined badly.

3. Very large missiles such as Agni-5 in its SLBM versions could be launched from sea. No length constraint for missiles.

4. No noise or little if any.

5. Bears a bigger inventory of SLBMs than a sub.

6. Not detectable by planes like P-3C orion/P-8s unlike the subs.

7. Less exposed/vulnerable to an enemy sub’s attack compared to a submerged under water pontoon and easier to re-load the canisters/tubes of USFS with new missiles from the inventory nearby as compared to a submerged pontoon. As shown in the schematic a USFS only has a heavy canister head exposed to the sea.

8. Provides an additional survivable back-up until boomer tech is stabilized and low noise, larger capacity boomers are made and in significant numbers.

9. India has a long coastline to form a large number of these silos dispersed within its territorial waters

10. Flexible to replace with newer generation missiles and their tubes/canisters whereas a boomer is more rigidly married to the type of SLBM and its tubes it carries.

11. Faster training of the crew due to lesser engineering complexity compared to an ssbn.

Remarks

- Please note that this concept is not a substitute for ssbn capabilities but a cheaper/doable additional alternative to be pursued along side the boomer as it matures. The boomer will take its course and time and also being complex can be produced at a slow rate only while our longest range missiles are too long for a sub but to answer the threat scenario coming up in immediate future vis-à-vis dragon-baki nexus, the USFS concept seems more time effective especially to hit the deep interiors of dragon.

- Greater the floor depth the greater the protection from incoming attack but also greater overhead pressure P=hdg. Varying depth choices exist of the under-water terrain between maximum depth near a port and shallow depths off the beaches


- In the long run, such silos would perhaps be defended by radar-interceptor based abm shield above the water and sonar-torpedo shield under the water as enemies develop counter-measures

Auxiliary Applications

Similar Silos loaded exclusively with torpedoes and data-linked(physically with cable buried in sea-floor) with active and passive sonars (and decoy emitters) scattered over the sea-floor would help defend against enemy submarines that make past our submarines or sneak in. Although Torpedo Silos are only a defensive measure, they would go a long way at these times when our submarine numbers are stretched thin. Their presence along western coastline(at least Gujarat, Maharashtra if not all) would help counter Agusta’s intrusions during a conflict. Even after we build up our sub numbers, it would act like the last line of shoreline defence.

JMT and apologies for the long post.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Anoop. A. » 01 Sep 2010 03:15

Since the position of the underwater platform is fixed, What happens when there is a torpedo attack, sea mines, a tsunami or a 26/11 model terrorist diver attempt for sabotage???

but having said that, the concept is a wild one........ a poor man's boomer :mrgreen:

Thomas Kolarek
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 08:10

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Thomas Kolarek » 01 Sep 2010 03:26

Can't we allot $30 billions and acquire 25-30, what ever submarines that are available in the World for Sale. I knew we have the technology to build, but it takes n number of years, and it seems we are in the grip of losing our vast Ocean control.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 01 Sep 2010 03:44

Maybe PRC has them in Manasa Sarovar?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Sep 2010 07:47

full marks for creative thinking! I have never seen this idea mentioned anywhere yet the pontoon launches were before us, nobody made the connection.

out of such thinking comes great products I must say!

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesha » 01 Sep 2010 08:09

Unexplained decision to sideline L&T
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... lt/406549/
L&T sources assert that over the preceding decade, the MoD and the Indian Navy had conveyed repeated assurances that the second submarine construction line would be set up by L&T at Hazira, in partnership with Russia.

According to Naik, “To implement this, a committee was constituted, headed by an MoD joint secretary, and comprising members from the Indian Navy and MoD. After assessing the capabilities of all shipyards, as per our understanding, the committee cleared L&T Hazira in 2001 as the second line for submarine construction.”

venkyt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 08:31
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby venkyt » 01 Sep 2010 08:39

Under Sea-Floor Silos (USFS) for large SLBMs and SLCMs as a deterrent capable of withstanding first-strike


Wonderful :idea: . Hundred Years to you, buddy.

Every other nation including Pigs&Pandas will appreciate this idea and some will implement it as well, but not our parliamentarians and their babus. At least, there will be considerable/more delay in implementation if proved feasible and practical to do so.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests