Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Apr 2010 14:32

masha-allah the P15 MLU (when is INS delhi due for refit?) can proof of concept a
Shtil-1 config with

8 x MR-90 orekh radars
64-72 SAMs in VL config to replace the 48 rotary at present
replace the AK630 with something newer like a guns-only kashtanM featuring the
closed-loop tracking radar of outgoing shells
a new main cannon similar to P17
fregat replaced by its next version pesa

not much use in trying RCS reduction like stealth turrets for RBU in P15 as the ship
has a giant RCS.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Apr 2010 14:37

Cannot see any decoy launchers on Shivalik ? Has any body "found" them ? I think they would be by the side of the aft hangar, a typical Russian practise.

K

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2010 15:17

Kersi D wrote: What is the difference between SA-N-7, SA-N-12 and SA-N-17 ? They use the same launchers.

Actually the 9K37 'BUK' has a NATO designation SA-11 Gadlfy (note there is no 'N' here as it is land based) its naval version was was 3S-90 Uragan (Nato named it SA-N-7) and Russians export it as 'Shtil'. Both use the '9M38' missile .

The SA-N-12 system is actually the naval variant of improved BUK family (to be precise the 9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 ) , NATO named it 'Grizzly' , these both use the 9M317 missile .

Coming to launcher commonality RU uses same launcher for Kub(Sa-6) , BUK and even the BUK-M1-2 , however I am not sure if the Shtil-1 launcher can launch the 9M38 missile.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Apr 2010 15:20

singha ji, hopefully we will use the barak-NG on P15 MLU instead of the shtil. that will get rid of some of the clutter. barak is also a much lighter system that the shtil so more can be carried.

D Roy sahab, you are correct about the blast deflectors, IIRC the subsequent mumbai and mysore don't have them.

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Apr 2010 15:36

^ Where , you mean the wall between the two RBU 6000's ? It is there for Mumbai and Mysore both.

And then of course the one behind Shtil launcher is visible too .

INS Mumbai: http://www.nachohat.org/gallery/ships_i ... _mumbai_17

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Apr 2010 16:30

Kersi D wrote:Cannot see any decoy launchers on Shivalik ? Has any body "found" them ? I think they would be by the side of the aft hangar, a typical Russian practise.

K

Is that the launcher / gun shaped assembly right below the MR-90 Orekh SAM FCS director?

There is one such on either side. see the larger pics from livefist for a clearer view.

I was wondering what this was.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Apr 2010 22:39

Kersi D wrote:...ACHTUNG ACHTUNG ACHTUNG

MODERATORS

WHO IS THIS ABDUL ? BANISH HIM !!!!

K

PS
Rohit why did u change yr name to abdul ? Wanna marry Sania Mirza !!

hehehe.....I already have the doubles partner. And as it is, there is 'that extra-bit'

on me which doen't qualify me for musical chair exercise....

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 12 Apr 2010 01:25

IN loves the Talwar, and the Shivalik is a big improvement. These are the major improvements that I could spot. Please fill in:

- much more stealthy
- more sophisticated platform management system (IPMS), which includes better damage control system.
- CODOG vs. COGOG propulsion
- two helicopters vs. one
- two RBU-6000 launchers vs one
- Israeli (EL/M 2238?) or RAN 40L phased array 3D search radar vs. Garpun-B
- Barak + Ak-630 for CIWS vs. Kashtan
- 76 mm OTO Melara main gun vs. 100 mm A-190E (although it can be argued by some that this is not an improvement)
- HUMSA and TAS vs. unknown (may be the same, but no confirmation)
- Built in India (perhaps the biggest advantage)

All in all, a great ship.

For 17-A, further improvements I would love to see are -
- more offensive fire-power. Eight SSMs are definitely not enough for a 5000 ton ship. 32 or at least 16 Brahmos.
- Barak-NG instead of Shtil-1.
- MF-Star instead of multiple sensors.
- a VL replacement for RBU-6000 launchers.

The good news is, most, if not all, of the wish list will definitely be fulfilled.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 12 Apr 2010 02:28

US navy chief in India

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 12 Apr 2010 02:45

Carrier battle groups to add muscle to Navy

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 785929.cms

‘‘By 2014-2015, we should have two full-fledged CBGs, with their accompanying fighters and other aircraft
, destroyers, frigates and tankers. It will make a huge difference,’’ said Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma, talking exclusively to TOI.

The first CBG will be centred around the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov, rechristened INS Vikramaditya, which India will now get in early-2013 under the fresh $2.33 billion deal inked last month. ‘‘We hope to run Vikramaditya for 40 years,’’ said Admiral Verma. The second CBG will be around the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC), whose keel was laid at Cochin Shipyard in February 2009. ‘‘There is some delay but it will be launched by first half of 2011. We should get it by 2014,’’ he added. The 45 MiG-29K fighters, contracted from Russia for about $2 billion, will operate both from Vikramaditya and IAC. Incidentally, a 65,000-tonne IAC-II is also on the drawing board. ‘‘It will be much bigger and capable of operating fighters, AEW (airborne early-warning) aircraft, tankers etc,’’ Admiral Verma said.

‘‘Construction of support and escort warships for the CBGs is going well,’’ said Admiral Verma. Under the Rs 8,101 crore Project-17 at Mazagon Docks, for instance, the first of the 5,300-tonne stealth frigate INS Shivalik will be commissioned this month.

‘‘The second (INS Satpura) will be delivered later this year and the third (INS Sahyadri) next year,’’ he said.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 12 Apr 2010 02:48

Conduct of Senior Naval Officer in Gorshkov Project Under Scanner

DNA / Josy Joseph

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Apr 2010 05:50

Above TOI article is first time mention is made of a 65,000 ton IAC II. That would be the largest carrier in the world after the US super carriers. The new UQ carrier(s) would equal but not surpass this tonnage.

Impressive to say the least. No info given on propulsion, conventional or nuclear

God save the Queen when she finds out the SDRE navy is larger and more powerful then the Royal navy

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2010 06:37

does GE have any gas turbines larger than LM2500 family? IN probably would want
a diesel or gas plant in preference over steam turbines. even the Ru is replacing the
Kuznetsov steam plant with a diesel/gas thing in upcoming 5 yr refit cycle. Zorya might have some useful kit. Pielstick surely has massive marine diesels for container ships/tankers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2010 07:19

Can all those "protrusions" on the Shivalik be housed in some sort of a shroud/s? Make it more "stealthy"? If "yes" then are there any plans for doing that? TIA.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Apr 2010 08:09

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 817109.cms

According to the CAG report, the platform is scheduled to be delivered by 2012 and would be due for its second refit in India by 2017.

Moreover, the CAG report predicts that the Russian shipyard might as well fail to stick to the scheduled delivery date.

"Overall work progress continued to be slow and needed to be accelerated to meet even the revised scheduled. Given the work needed to be done, preceeding the undocking and the cascading effect of delay in undocking on downstream activities, there was a risk that the delivery acceptance trials of the ship would not be completed by 2012," the report said.

"The anti-aircraft missile complex selected to be fitted in the ship failed during the trials and the refurbishment contract was concluded without the missile system... This implies that the ship would not have a CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) till her first refit in India in 2017," revealed the report.

just imagine the hulabaloo and namecalling if this was a DRDO project, people would have been shouting from their rooftops about how DRDO scientists live in the lap of luxury and are traitors to the nation. but when the russians dupe us it's almost considered a privilege.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Apr 2010 08:20

Which is a better system:
1. Kasthan
2. Barak + AK 630

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Apr 2010 08:38

obviously IN thinks it's the later. why else would they insist on changing from kasthan to barak+AK-630 combo. barak has a proven capability to intercept anti ship cruise missiles.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Apr 2010 08:45

Very true,
However, the Russians are supposed to be experts in SAM systems (other than the shitl episode with the talwars) one hasn't heard of misgivings with the Kasthans.

I would have supposed that the kind of closed system that Kasthan is, gives it big advantages...

The barak of course has made the IN really really happy.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Apr 2010 09:16

tejas wrote:Above TOI article is first time mention is made of a 65,000 ton IAC II. That would be the largest carrier in the world after the US super carriers. The new UQ carrier(s) would equal but not surpass this tonnage.

Impressive to say the least. No info given on propulsion, conventional or nuclear God save the Queen when she finds out the SDRE navy is larger and more powerful then the Royal navy

Very soon our Coast Guard will be comparable to the RN, forget about IN.

K

God Save the Queen

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Apr 2010 09:28

Singha wrote:does GE have any gas turbines larger than LM2500 family?

LM 6000

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Apr 2010 10:31

NRao wrote:Can all those "protrusions" on the Shivalik be housed in some sort of a shroud/s? Make it more "stealthy"? If "yes" then are there any plans for doing that? TIA.

sir they are pretty stealth in first place. And no they are structurally supposed to be outside as I told you how it increases stability and safety (against torpedoes) ... some passenger ships have retractable stabilizers, but they have a lot of shortcomings. They give a more comfortable ride by changing the pitch of those elevators, but they are weights to carry for a navy ship and eat up a lot of internal space

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 12 Apr 2010 10:44

Kersi D wrote:God Save the Queen

India save the Queen.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Apr 2010 10:50

let's not get ahead of ourselves, RN is a very capable force, and still enjoys considerable lead over IN in many areas (SSN and SSBN deployment, amphibs AAW etc). globally, I would think their combat potential to be second only to that of the USN.
certainly we would expect IN to be one of the top 3 in future, but before that actually happens,
"let's not count our chickens before they hatch"

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Apr 2010 11:15

uddu wrote:
Kersi D wrote:God Save the Queen
India save the Queen.

Yes They may have to out source these jobs to India. At least we speak Queen's English which perhaps many Englishmen are not able to do so.

K

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 12 Apr 2010 11:15

Above TOI article is first time mention is made of a 65,000 ton IAC II. That would be the largest carrier in the world after the US super carriers. The new UQ carrier(s) would equal but not surpass this tonnage.

Impressive to say the least. No info given on propulsion, conventional or nuclear God save the Queen when she finds out the SDRE navy is larger and more powerful then the Royal navy

Not the first time.There have been multiple reports on this. Lets wait and see and keep pur fingers crossed. Also talk that there will be a nuke version later.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Apr 2010 11:18

They can build a nuclear sub, they can build a carrier. Hoping they combine those. [/daydreaming]

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Apr 2010 12:49

Carl_T wrote:They can build a nuclear sub, they can build a carrier. Hoping they combine those. [/daydreaming]

I think we should seriously think of joining hands with UK for AC. It may turn out to be expensive but in the long run we will benefit in terms of TT and training.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Apr 2010 12:55

I am going to wager a bet. The 65K carrier is going to be conventional powered.

One reason is that the french have faced and continue to face problems with the Charles-de-Gaulle's nuclear propulsion. And these are the frenchies we are talking about, who have built Naval reactors for ages.

IN is going to opt for conventional power. Then all depends on how the Arihant reactor turns out. If that thing performs like a dream, then N propulsion might be on.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 12 Apr 2010 13:04

The 65,000 tonnes Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier are also conventionally powered due to the high running costs of a nuclear reactor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2010 13:46

the chinese have gone the french way in housing most "messy stuff" under white domes. I know not if it just protects from weather and sea rust or gives RCS benefit?

also they have used the usn layout of having ASMs amidships point port and starboard from inclined tubes. this frees up space on foredeck for more SAMs - esp considering they have the round launchers not the "tiled" launchers.

personally I too like the idea

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Apr 2010 16:51

Ooh! Feeling the heat wave aren't you Kavu?The slanderous quote you objected to was from the CAGs report, not my words pal,so tale your lance and like Don Quixote tilt at that outfit! Plus,the DSRV requirement is another one which has languished for years ,the Brit offer which you spoke of has been gathering dust in the MOD for a long time (we've advocated buying/leasing it for years long before U arrived on BR ) until Uncle Sam arrived with his offer that "couldn't be refused".And I have never mentioned even once in all these years anything about buying a Russian sub rescue vessel because they do not have a suitable product! In fact I must be a closet Nazi for advocating further buys of German U-boats.Now how does that square up with cosying up to Stalin's latest flagbearers?

The hysteria from a few quarters that accompanies every expose as to how US arms merchants in recent times are getting first bite at India's defence cherry is thoroughly amusing.There is a famous quote,"the guilty flee when no man pursueth",similarly,"thou protesteth too much"!

PS:Just for the record,here's our CNS on Indo-Russian naval cooperation and his opinion of its products.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2010 ... rview.html

Firstly, let me clear the air regarding Indo-Russian relationship. Ours has been a time tested and enduring relationship and there has been no ’strain’ in the relations between the two navies. Let me also assure you that the Indian Navy is not going to settle down for anything which is not contemporary or expected to become obsolete in a few years. Price negotiations are part and parcel of any defence contract and that always involves certain amount of time for assessment of scope of work and estimation of funding required. I am pleased to inform your readers that the negotiations have progressed satisfactorily. It would be our endeavour and earnest effort to make good and compress the time delays as far as possible. Of course the ship would have to undergo all the mandatory sea trials before being accepted.

Having commanded a Soviet built destroyer earlier, I can assertively state that Russian built ships are robust, easy to maintain, and dependable. The quality of Soviet shipbuilding technology is borne out by the fact that the Rajput Class destroyers acquired from the Soviet Union commencing from 1980 continue to be frontline warships of the Indian Navy, albeit with an upgrade of the sensors and weapon package. The current generation of Russian warships have contemporary electronics, weapons and sensors.

The future dimension of Indo-Russian naval cooperation is slated to grow in the years to come. At the governmental level, an inter-governmental commission on military technical cooperation is co-chaired by the two defence ministers. Three Talwar class follow-on ships are currently being built in a Russian shipyard for the IN. These ships, to be named INS Teg, Tarkash, and Trikhand, are in advanced stages of construction and are expected to be inducted between 2011 and 2012.

Today, cooperation is not limited to a buyer-seller relationship but includes joint development of futuristic capabilities. The INDRA series of bilateral exercises with Russia have seen a steady growth in the level of content and complexity of the exercises. The Russian Navy has exercised with the Indian Navy in our waters and we reciprocated by sending Indian naval ships to Vladivostok for INDRA 07 in Apr 2007.

...amd with the US,

The US and Indian Navies also have a lot in common at the doctrinal level. A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power of the US unveiled by the current CNO USN and Commandants US Marine Corps (USMC) and US Coast Guard (USCG) in end 2007, emphasises the need for constructive engagement to face up to the current challenges of maritime security. The Indian Navy also sees the imperatives of cooperation between navies to confront non-traditional threats, as clearly enunciated in our documents Freedom to Use the Seas: India’s Maritime Military Strategy and the Indian Maritime Doctrine 2009.

Sharing maritime information undoubtedly will be a major focus area for the two navies to further consolidate our relationship. We have common concerns regarding piracy, maritime terrorism, smuggling and other nefarious activities at sea. Maritime Domain Awareness, thus, will be one of the key result areas. It is in these areas that the two navies will find greater scope for cooperation. We envision tackling the myriad challenges to maritime security as equal partners, and are putting into place mechanisms that will address our common concerns, while keeping due regard for individual national interests and sensitivities. As is already known, the Indo-US “Framework for Maritime Security Cooperation”, signed in 02 Mar 2006 by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George Bush charts the course for us.

Interesting choice of words,"...maritime security as equal partners, and are putting into place mechanisms that will address our common concerns, while keeping due regard for individual national interests and sensitivities."

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Apr 2010 17:50

tejas wrote:Above TOI article is first time mention is made of a 65,000 ton IAC II. That would be the largest carrier in the world after the US super carriers. The new UQ carrier(s) would equal but not surpass this tonnage.

Impressive to say the least. No info given on propulsion, conventional or nuclear God save the Queen when she finds out the SDRE navy is larger and more powerful then the Royal navy

he he he... i guess you havent seen this news....

Antony, on his part, indicated that India would go in for a larger 64,000-tonne second IAC after the first one gets going. The eventual plan, of course, is to have nuclear-powered carriers since their "sea endurance'' is virtually limitless compared to conventional ones.

BTW, when expressed in imperial ton CVF QE weighs 64,000 ton. And the propulsion is supposed to be nuclear powered.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 12 Apr 2010 18:20

^^^ Kanson, boss, I missed that article.

However the recent TOI article directly quotes an Admiral on the tonnage of IAC II making me feel alot better that its more than smoke and mirrors.

Cheers.

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 18:31

Kanson wrote: BTW, when expressed in imperial ton CVF QE weighs 64,000 ton. And the propulsion is supposed to be nuclear powered.

CVF is not Nuclear Powered, it was never intended to and never will be.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

The MoD has decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its high cost, and has chosen an podded propulsion system based on Rolls-Royce's integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system. The contract for the propulsion system was placed in October 2008.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2010 18:38

comparing the latest PLAN surface ships
051C - 48x SA-n-6 missiles , 6 torpedo tubes, 8 ASM, 2 ciws guns
no helicopters, no point defence SAMs, no RBU launchers, no exhaust suppression,
steam propulsion, depends on fregat as 3d search radar as rear area is occupied
by s300 radar

052C - the chinese 'aegis'
- 48 HQ9 missiles, 8 ASM, 2 ciws guns, 1 ka28 heli, zorya codog plant,
no rbu launchers, exhaust suppression, no point defence SAM

052B - 16 ASM, 2 ciws guns, no asw rocket launchers, 6 TT, 48 Shtil missiles,
1 ka28 heli

after a frenetic burst of activity earlier this decade why the sudden drop off in
surface ship building activity?

all their ships seem to lack in ASW protection (rbu, 2 big helis) and no short range SAMs at all when NATO/Rus/Indian ships are loaded with ram/essm/sa15/sa13/barak1.

some of them do not carry heavy torpedoes, something almost all indian ships
do.

seems to me their threat perception is more of air strike than submarines.
which is ok against philipines or vietnam over mischief reef, but unkil has both
air strike AND plenty of submarines yet.

Kavu · Post by **Kavu** » 12 Apr 2010 19:06

Rahul M wrote:

just imagine the hulabaloo and namecalling if this was a DRDO project, people would have been shouting from their rooftops about how DRDO scientists live in the lap of luxury and are traitors to the nation. but when the russians dupe us it's almost considered a privilege.

Or if this was American episode. The Indian Naval Officer being probed, Price Increase, and Lapse of Time. Americans would be roasted, but about Russians not even a pipsqueak.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Apr 2010 19:30

Singha wrote:seems to me their threat perception is more of air strike than submarines.
which is ok against philipines or vietnam over mischief reef, but unkil has both
air strike AND plenty of submarines yet.

Yes. Indian ships are more "multirole" with good anti sub, anti ship and residual air defense. Chinese ships are less anti sub, focused more heavily on air defense and residual surface /anti ship.

Yeah.. Tailored to their threat perception. Basically to provide forward air cover in a cross taiwan straits op, where the primary threat will be from air I guess.

Despite all the bluster, their fleet is not geared towards taking on Unkil or any serious Naval power. The Japanese navy will wipe the floor with the Chinese boats.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 12 Apr 2010 20:04

Carrier battle groups to add muscle to Navy

Nothing projects geostrategic power better than aircraft carriers prowling on high seas. Powerful fighter jets tearing into the skies from a moving airfield, which can travel 600 nautical miles a day, can send shivers down any adversary’s spine. Carrier-battle groups (CBGs) can, after all, rapidly respond across the entire spectrum of operations as ‘‘situation changers’’ in times of crisis. It’s no wonder then that US has as many as 11 CBGs to deploy around the globe, giving it the capability to strike almost anywhere.

India has been making do with a solitary carrier, the 50-year-old INS Viraat, since 1987. But now, with India and Russia finally ending their bitter wrangling over the huge cost escalation in Admiral Gorshkov’s refit, the Navy is steaming towards its aim of deploying two CBGs in Indian Ocean and beyond. ‘‘By 2014-2015, we should have two full-fledged CBGs, with their accompanying fighters and other aircraft, destroyers, frigates and tankers. It will make a huge difference,’’ said Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma, talking exclusively to TOI.

The first CBG will be centred around the 44,570-tonne Gorshkov, rechristened INS Vikramaditya, which India will now get in early-2013 under the fresh $2.33 billion deal inked last month. ‘‘We hope to run Vikramaditya for 40 years,’’ said Admiral Verma. The second CBG will be around the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC), whose keel was laid at Cochin Shipyard in February 2009. ‘‘There is some delay but it will be launched by first half of 2011. We should get it by 2014,’’ he added. The 45 MiG-29K fighters, contracted from Russia for about $2 billion, will operate both from Vikramaditya and IAC. Incidentally, a 65,000-tonne IAC-II is also on the drawing board. ‘‘It will be much bigger and capable of operating fighters, AEW (airborne early-warning) aircraft, tankers etc,’’ Admiral Verma said.

But for now, Navy’s intention is to ‘‘stretch’’ the operational life of the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, even though it’s left with only 11 of its Sea Harrier jump-jets, till IAC is commissioned. With as many as 40 warships and submarines on order, coupled with a dedicated communication satellite to be launched later this year by Isro, Navy is fast emerging as a true-blue three-dimensional blue-water force.

This is critical since India’s geopolitical interests stretch right from Hormuz Strait down to Malacca Strait. ‘‘Construction of support and escort warships for the CBGs is going well,’’ said Admiral Verma. Under the Rs 8,101 crore Project-17 at Mazagon Docks, for instance, the first of the 5,300-tonne stealth frigate INS Shivalik will be commissioned this month.

‘‘The second (INS Satpura) will be delivered later this year and the third (INS Sahyadri) next year,’’ he said.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 12 Apr 2010 20:06

^^Dear Rahul M just out of curiosity, the above referenced Venerable CAG report sites that the CIWS failed during the trials. As far as I recall Vikramaditya was supposed to have multiple Kashtan mounts (with a combination of Barak possibly) for the CIWS role. Does this mean that the Kashtan failed?
It’s a pretty much validated system that is already operational on Talwars and will also appear on second Krivak III batch. If the system really failed why is IN continuing with Kashtans?
Also what kind of trial was this? Was it a special one for Vik cause IN had already tested (and indeed is using) Kashtans previously.

-Thanks for ur time.

arun · Post by **arun** » 12 Apr 2010 21:38

X Posted. If true, Russia may have leveraged satisfying Commodore Sukhjinder Singh’s libido into a USD1.356 Billion windfall for herself.

It may be prudent for Russia to voluntarily provide India a USD1.356 Billion grant:

Navy officer in Gorshkov deal faces sex-scandal inquiry