Indian Naval Discussion

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 06 Dec 2010 18:36

I think IN wants Fuel Cell AIP for its indigenous line of subs in the future. Getting the Russian or German subs would give us access to the technology.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Dec 2010 19:03

Philip wrote:Sri,any pics available? Can these OPVs also launch Danush as in the earlier OPVs?

Pic

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 06 Dec 2010 20:15

Naval Mig-29k develops Hydraulic failure leading to tyre burst

arya · Post by **arya** » 06 Dec 2010 20:22

INS Vikramaditya archival history video by Sevmash/[Shiv Aroor]
[youtube]ZO5wmqwRKLY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2010 22:37

Philip, The IN chief talking of PRC ASBM is very interesting. Recall the IJN attack on the RN around Malaya in 1941, which spelled the end of the battle ships and cruisers without air support? Wonder if this ASBM will do the same to carriers and other capital ships unless they have anti BM defences.

Popular Science has a graphic of the PRC ASBM concept of operations as visualised by USN. Essentially its a BM that takes of from shore and traverses a ballistic path and then levels off and goes horizontal and attacks target ship in a steep dive.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Dec 2010 22:49

well ramana ji - an interesting point
not just the prince of wales and repulse, but also the italian fleet, some of the german and japanese capital ships, etc., etc.

if the BM really has good terminal guidance then a CBG will need it for sure...
the only caveat is that at present a conventional BM's probability of hitting a CBG without secure satellite surveillance and detection is relatively low to the point of being unimportant (not true for nuclear perhaps)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Dec 2010 22:54

Ramana that is the kind of trajectory Kh-22 has been doing for 3 decades now , the only difference it is not a BM but carried by aircraft giving it more flexibility ,else the trajectory is the same goes high up 22 - 44 km travels horizontal for most part of its flight and does a steep dive at the target , nothing revolutionary about ASBM ....... the challenge is still to find the aircraft carrier a moving target in open seas , in the straits of taiwan that would be a lesser challenge.

The US is making unnecessary fuss on ASBM perhaps with its own motive.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Dec 2010 22:55

ramana ji, USN is hyping this ASBM for its own needs. the CNS' comment is a placeholder at most (he says 'yes' to if he was concerned. he can hardly say 'heck I don't give a damn !') if you read Adm Mehta's comments he was quite dismissive of it.

frankly, realtime detection and targeting of a moving ship and passing on that info to a BM is beyond anyone's ability AFA we know. it is far from being a trivial matter. it needs to be solved before BMs are even a remote threat to a moving warship.
BMs are a threat only to berthed ships but that is true for any accurate BM, not just this shasao jian things. perhaps that is what PLA intends to do, target USN ships at ports, now that they finally have missiles that are accurate enough. the USN certainly need ABM systems for such an eventuality but do we ?

if the BM really has good terminal guidance then a CBG will need it for sure...
the only caveat is that at present a conventional BM's probability of hitting a CBG without secure satellite surveillance and detection is relatively low to the point of being unimportant (not true for nuclear perhaps)

how will sats pass on that info to BMs through the high temp field that surrounds the RV during re-entry ?
even for nukes the area of impact is small enough for any moving ship to move out of the zone in the time it takes for a missile to get target info and reach the target.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Dec 2010 22:59

well yes, but just to play devils advocate - a salvo of nuke bms scattered around the last known location of the CBG with a 8 minute sailing speed dispersion... might increase kill probability to 30-40%... all a bit pointless i think

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2010 23:00

Folks even RN thought the idea of shore based a/c attacking ships at sea was far fetched and thus lost quite a few capital ships in 1941 that led to the surrender at Singapore. All am saying is don't think its propaganda just because it comes from one source. Always focus on message and not messenger.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Dec 2010 23:03

We don't even know the details of this ASBM thingy , what if it is not an out and out BM ? i.e. they can opt to fly in a depressed trajectory and have a liquid fueled final stage with necessary throttling to achieve a CeP of about 50 or so meters then an air burst CBU or fragmentation warhead can do the rest.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Dec 2010 23:06

to be credible, this thingy has to penetrate the Fighter CAP, then AEGIS screen around the CBG, then CIWS
it would need a lot of missiles and very specific information on location and trajectory in order to achieve a relatively high kill probability

as far as we know, a BM will struggle to tick all these boxes

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Dec 2010 23:18

Chinese while developing ASBM were having the opinion about American ABM system that, it can only able to defeat near ballistic projectile and not any mixed variations. It is as usual a cheap copy of Russian Topol-M but fails in many parameters. In addition they are trying to have long range stand off. Americans simply changed the game by seeking long range high speed land attack missile to be developed in fast track manner, to be fitted in any vessel in the same launch canister as many as possible which can easily take out as many BM sites as well as any shore based targeting system. Before the development they can only field defensive system and now they can do both, offensive & defensive reaction to ASBM.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 07 Dec 2010 04:21

As many as 222 trainees, including 57 of the Indian Coast Guard, passed out on successful completion of five months training under two batches at a parade led by Captain Manav Sachdev from the Indian Naval Academy (INA) at Ezhimala near Kannur on Monday.

The passing out parade was reviewed by Vice-Admiral KN Sushil, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Naval Command, Kochi. He also awarded the medals to meritorious trainees.

Cadet Captain Prabhat Pankaj from Bihar was awarded the President's gold medal for being adjudged first in overall order of merit in 81st Naval Course while Cadet Praveen Kumar from Bihar and cadet Adjutant Sandeep Kumar Khuntia from Odisha stood second and third. They were awarded the Chief of the Naval Staff’s silver medal and Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief’s bronze medals respectively.

Sub-Lieutenant Anand T from Tamil Nadu won the CNS silver medal for being adjudged first in overall merit in the Naval orientation course and Assistant Commandant Praveen Kumar Iyer (Tamil Nadu) was awarded the Commandant INA bronze medal. Nidhi Jaiswal of Uttar Pradesh was awarded the FOC-IN-C silver medal for Best Women trainee.

Southern Naval Commandant Vice Admiral KN Sushil told newsmen that the academy had decided to extend the term of NOC training from five months to one year and that infrastructural arrangements were going on for this purpose at academy in Ezhimala.

222 trainees pass out from Naval Academy

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 07 Dec 2010 04:47

Germany Offers India Joint Defence Production for Third-Party Sale

Another key area of defence cooperation, he said, are submarines. India is planning to spend Rs.50,000 crore ($11 billion) to build six submarines.

'So the issue is six submarines. Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft is contending for the project. This is at a preliminary stage and later on there will be tender offers.'

He said the Indian defence ministry has already forwarded a request for information to the HDW and that has been Replied a couple of weeks ago.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 07 Dec 2010 08:40

Navy moots to make Scorpene subs more lethal
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Navy-moot ... 35221.aspx

The navy is weighing a proposal to modify the under-construction Scorpene submarines to enable the boats to stay underwater for longer periods and enhance their combat capabilities. It is considering to equip the submarines, being built at Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL), with an air independent propulsion (AIP) system that can recharge their batteries without having to surface for more than three weeks.
.......
......
DCNS CEO Patrick Boissier, who is accompanying visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said his company was in talks with the navy to equip the submarines with AIP systems. Boissier said if a contract were to be placed by next year, AIP systems could be integrated into the fifth and the sixth submarines rolling out of MDL in 2018. The systems can be retrofitted on the first four submarines later under an upgrade programme

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 07 Dec 2010 08:57

http://idrw.org/?p=1726

Pic:It was Mig-29KUB NO 672 Twin Seater which suffered Hydraulic Snag

Its was a Naval Twin seater aircraft Mig-29KUB NO 672 which made a smooth touch down after facing Hydraulic Snag which lead to a Tyre burst , Mig-29 made an emergency landing on runway 0826 at Dabolim Airport, which is also Major also stations Major Naval Base INS HANSA .

soon after landing distressed aircraft was attended by Fire tenders and maintenance engineers of Indian Navy ,and soon aircraft was towed back to Hangar for repairs , this emergency landing caused few civilian aircraft’s to remain airborne .

Picture is been taken from a local newspaper send to us by a spotter in Goa , and has per his information this particular bird has been seen flying regularly

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2010 17:55

Ramanna,the USN have a solution in that their major warships already are being groomed to target incoming BMs as part of their Missile defence strategy,locating their warships off the enemy's coast as well as their own coastline.SM-3 missiles have been tested successfully several times.They might need to refine these missiles a bit to counter a PLAN ASBM once more info is available about their flight characteristics.The IN should also begin to examine fielding anti-BM missiles aboard a new larger class of DDGs/CGs,which could complement our shore-based ABM systems.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Dec 2010 18:10

ramana wrote:Philip, The IN chief talking of PRC ASBM is very interesting. Recall the IJN attack on the RN around Malaya in 1941, which spelled the end of the battle ships and cruisers without air support? Wonder if this ASBM will do the same to carriers and other capital ships unless they have anti BM defences.

Popular Science has a graphic of the PRC ASBM concept of operations as visualised by USN. Essentially its a BM that takes of from shore and traverses a ballistic path and then levels off and goes horizontal and attacks target ship in a steep dive.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Dec 2010 20:15

Ramana,

The ASBM is a threat if it gets accurate information. But please keep in mind that a ship at sea is a moving target. So the enemy must know the general area in which the group is. Then that area is to be localised. Only then will the Missile will be launched. Even then the battle group if moiving at 25 knots will have upto 10 minutes to move. So for the ASBM to hit it will have to be launched or will heve to target an area where the battlegroup will be 10 minutes from the last known position. In the 10 minuets the battle group can move 360 degrees from the last known location.

I hope that this gives an priliminary overview of the difficulties faced by the ASBM. Moreover unlike the ASCM it will lack the ability to search for targets if it is not in its primart FOV.

So in that respect, the PLAN will be better served if they chose for go for long range ASCM.

JMT

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Dec 2010 21:10

any conventional warhead without a direct hit or a very near miss will also not put an aircraft carrier out of commission

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Dec 2010 21:35

Using Nukes will kicking the hornets nest. So the weapon even if capable. Is not some thing that will cause most competent navies to looses sleep.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2010 21:47

wrt to the 10 min problem, if they have a fix and current heading, they could fire a salvo of 6-10 ASBM to come down in a circle to cover all the different places the CBG could have moved in that 10 mins and let the radar seeker of the ASBMs which fall on the real location pickup the ships and attack, the rest might catch some straggler units of the carrier or fall harmlessly into the sea.

the cost eqn is favourable - the ASBM will cost say $10 mil each, while a carrier and its airwing cost $10b alone (leaving out its escorts). the radar seeker needs to home on biggest RCS target - a simple algorithm.

with only around 4 deployable CBG capable of being sortied to launch an attack, it would not be unusual to fire 50 ASBM in a attack on a single CBG if results could be obtained. of the 50, around 5-10 will surely be able to locate the carrier and launch the attack.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Dec 2010 22:10

Rahul M wrote:not sure what exactly drove this mindset but even in 80's every CNS was speaking of being a 'builder's navy'. it's a long term vision that has been institutionalized and the results are for all to see.

Some reasons

1) They had the "luxury" of not facing an immediate threat of "matched" levels like what was faced by IA and IAF. Even today for example IN does not have to worry about PLAN like IA needs to worry about PLA.
2) No threat of loss of territory on the lines IA needed to worry about hence a little more breathing room.
3) No money -- the Cinderella service had to make every rupee really count -- thus Indian made equipment often were the only possible way out.

Of course none of this takes away from the essential vision of the IN planners. However they had enabling conditions too.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Dec 2010 22:11

i would wager that if unkil lost a carrier, then the loss causer is likely to be receiving some buckets of instant sunshine before the night is out

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Dec 2010 22:15

^ This means that they have to saturate a circular area with diameter of about 10kms considering that the CBG can move at about 3kts (5km) from the center of a circle in 10 odd minutes - 78sqkm.

Doable with nukes, but conventionally? Challenging.

CM.

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Dec 2010 22:21

Just curious .If you know a super carrier's speed then you would be able to grossly estimate its position within a circle.And if multiple missiles are used., say with real time guidance from satellites., wont it be possible for one of these to hit the bulls eye.I am also thinking about active radar/passive sensors in these missiles.It doesn't look too far fetched.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Dec 2010 22:23

well, some kind of FAE salvo to boil the ocean might result in significant damage across a wide area... but nothing like a direct hit to actually make a difference

as things stand i don't see the americans shivering in their dhotis on this one just yet

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 07 Dec 2010 23:31

kit wrote:Just curious .If you know a super carrier's speed then you would be able to grossly estimate its position within a circle.And if multiple missiles are used., say with real time guidance from satellites., wont it be possible for one of these to hit the bulls eye.I am also thinking about active radar/passive sensors in these missiles.It doesn't look too far fetched.

It is not that far fetched in theory but in practicality I'm not aware of what is the blast impact radius from a BM explosive (non-nuclear), besides a BM approach is easy to detect and even a salvo of say 25-30 BM's towards a CBG would have to contend with SAM systems on board the Carrier and support ships apart from CIWS.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Dec 2010 23:34

First P-8I part is manufactured at Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, Kansas.

The Boeing-led P-8I team Monday began fabricating the first part for the Indian navy’s long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft. The P-8I is a variant of the P-8A Poseidon that Boeing is developing for the U.S. Navy.

"Today marks the P-8I program’s move from design to build," said Leland Wight, Boeing P-8I program manager. "We’re on schedule and the Indian Navy is looking forward to receiving its first plane."

Employees at Spirit AeroSystems -- where all Boeing Next-Generation 737 fuselages, nacelles and pylons are designed and built -- cut the P-8I’s first part, a bonded aluminum panel that later will be installed on the fuselage’s upper lobe to support an antenna. The panel and other fuselage components will come together on Spirit’s existing Next-Generation 737 production line.

Spirit will ship the P-8I fuselage to Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Renton, Wash., in mid-2011 for final assembly. After that, Boeing Defense, Space & Security employees will install mission systems and complete testing prior to delivery to India.

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

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Dec 2010 23:39

kit wrote:Just curious .If you know a super carrier's speed then you would be able to grossly estimate its position within a circle.And if multiple missiles are used., say with real time guidance from satellites., wont it be possible for one of these to hit the bulls eye.I am also thinking about active radar/passive sensors in these missiles.It doesn't look too far fetched.

did you bother reading the thread ? reliable EM transmission is impossible around a BM RV duting re-entry due to the formation of a plasma layer around it.
so how will you get 'real time guidance' from satellites if you can't transmit that info to the missile ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Dec 2010 01:18

Kanson Thanks.

Philip and GD, in effect the ASBM range will reduce the carrier standoff and thus impact operations at a minimum. So less visible gun boat diplomacy.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 08 Dec 2010 05:25

First Indigenous Anti-Submarine Rocket Handed Over to Navy

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Dec 2010 06:06

Boeing Begins Indian Navy P-8I Development; First Deliverables by 2012

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 08 Dec 2010 08:44

Progress Report of all 6 Scoprene Subs

Navy to acquire AIP technology for Scorpenes
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 937574.ece

The navy’s Scorpene submarines are likely to have increased operational range and also do away with surfacing to access atmospheric oxygen, thanks to the new Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology.

The submarines, under construction at the Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Limited, are likely to get the AIP technology that will increase their operational range without having to surface to access atmospheric oxygen.

The navy is considering various options available with it to fit the last two of the six submarines under the project, codenamed P75, with the AIP including the proposal made by French defence company DCNS.

DCNS Chairman and CEO Patrick Boissier, who is part of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s delegation to India, told reporters here that his firm has made an informal proposal to the navy in this regard.

“We have made an informal proposal to the navy for AIP technology in the last two of the Scorpenes that will be built at MDL. Now it is up to the navy to take a call on this proposal. We have held informal discussions in this regard,” Boissier said.

“The navy is considering the proposal and will take a call on it. We have some options, apart from the DCNS one, including an indigenous AIP system that is under development,” a navy officer, unwilling to be named, said here.

AIP encompasses technologies that allow a submarine to operate without the need to surface or use a snorkel to access atmospheric oxygen and it usually excludes the use of nuclear power, but is about augmenting or replacing diesel-electric propulsion system of non-nuclear vessels.

Several countries in the world currently adopt the AIP technology in the submarines that they build and these include the US, Russia, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden.

Though the Scorpenes, being built with DCNS and Tales help at MDL, did not envisage AIP for the six submarines under the P75 project, the navy’s second line of six conventional submarines, called P75I, which were recently approved by the government, will incorporate the technology.

Talking about P75, Bossier said DCNS was in charge of major transfer of technology (ToT) to MDL for the building of 6 Scorpene submarines.

“We are carrying out genuine transfers of technologies and know-how at an unprecedented level under the Scorpene project right from the first submarine, which is under construction at present,” he said.

DCNS is providing Indian partners with technical assistance to manufacture equipment through indigenisation programmes.

“MDL has today absorbed the demanding technologies associated to hull fabrication. The shipyard modernisation programme launched by MDL will allow it to deliver more than one submarine per year,” he added.

The Scorpene project is currently delayed by over two years now and the first submarine is expected to be delivered by MDL only in 2012, after which the remaining five are expected at the rate of one submarine every year.

Boissier said MDL had already done the work on the hulls for the first two of the six Scorpenes and the work on the third and fourth vessels’ hulls were in progress.

“The frame to receive the hull of the fifth submarine is in progress. As you know, the launch of the first submarine has been delayed. We are constantly working with MDL and Delhi authorities to achieve the earliest possible date of launch,” Boissier noted.

At present, the outfitting works on the first Scorpene are in progress and the delivery of combat system equipment for it would happen soon. The other five submarines would get the equipment at the rate of one per year.

For the upcoming stages of the building (outfittings, systems integration and trials), Boissier said an new approach was needed at the MDL and together with DCNS, the shipyard had set up a ‘task force’ to monitor quality and improve efficiency.

“MDL is the only Indian naval shipyard to have produced submarines in the past. However, the competencies developed have seen a dip in the last 15 years.

“Considering submarines technologies, this is a huge gap to fill. Human competences, when not maintained, disappear slowly but surely. Industrial capacities too become weak or obsolete. You, therefore, have to consider new investments and learning stages that cost both time and money. It is crucial to keep competencies and industrial capacities up to date to perpetuate the investments made,” he said.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 09:12

dinesha wrote:Progress Report of all 6 Scoprene Subs

Navy to acquire AIP technology for Scorpenes
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/techno ... 937574.ece
“MDL has today absorbed the demanding technologies associated to hull fabrication. The shipyard modernisation programme launched by MDL will allow it to deliver more than one submarine per year,” he added.

The underlined portion is the most interesting IMO. It will be interesting to know by when th eprogramme will be completed and when will the Navy take advantage of that.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 08 Dec 2010 10:29

Rahul M wrote:reliable EM transmission is impossible around a BM RV duting re-entry due to the formation of a plasma layer around it. so how will you get 'real time guidance' from satellites if you can't transmit that info to the missile ?

Just speculating here, but whatever info is available on the net, it seems, the ASBM actually flattens out (much like Prithvi) loosing speed before engaging the target to facilitate effective seeker operation. IMVVHO the scheme is much like the naval ASROC, where a unguided ballistic rocket is used to increase range of the torpedo warhead and reduce the engagement time. What type of warhead this ASBM uses is still unknown.

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 10:54

even a hail storm of steel ball bearings released in a falling cloud before the ASBM strikes whatever it strikes will kill any exposed systems like ciws, radar and radio masts, planes and helicopters on deck (american carriers use the deck as permanent parking areas). the speed of these ball bearings will be very high and will likely kill people and damage the decks also.

a small explosive charge could eject these balls into a wide cloud coming down at ASBM terminal speed (mach6 lets say)...increasing the damage area to a circle of several 100mts in diameter.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 11:18

Singha,

The ball bearings will not do a lot of damage unless released very close to the target.

The lethal range of a shrapnel is very limited. The numbes of ball bearings carried will also be limited. Whats with all the additional load to be carried by the RV.

disha · Post by **disha** » 08 Dec 2010 11:25

Only a nuke tipped BM attack can take out a CBG from very afar. Further the nuke BM has to be precise, very precise (arjun chaap (tm)).

Check out Operation Crossroads. Nuke Shot Able which was an airburst caused most damage within 1Km of point zero and the carrier which suffered damage at @2.5 km was more of a fire damage caused by jet fuel.

Nuke Shot Baker was underwater and outside of the 1km zone, the most damage was due to radiation (ships are intact, but heavily irridiated killing the crew). The most damage outside of the 1km zone were on ships perpendicular to the base surge.

A typical CBG is very spread out. So to take out main elements, the nuke BM has to land closest to the carrier and has to detonate at a precise height and at precise point. Otherwise it is a waste.

Counter-intuitively, a massed attack by supersonic cruise missiles has a better chances.