Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Jul 2014 13:17

only the AW101 and CH53 among navalized helicopters look big and meaty enough for the things we want.

unfortunately I think there is some limitation in size means a pair of them might not fit on our ships. even the huge Type45 which is broader than any of our DDGs seems to carry only a single merlin.

the brutish CH53 was even used to drag a hydrofoil minesweeping sled in the water
http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/ ... review.jpg

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Jul 2014 14:49

A dunking sonar should be an absolute requirement even for a 4.5t ASW helo apart from sonobuoys .The range of ship's sonars can vary in littoral waters depending upon thermal gradients,silt,etc. and suffer limitations.Even here most ASW frigates and DDGs will have to use towed arrays in addition to hull mounted sonars ,plus its integral ASW air assets to get a more precise bearing and range of the sub.It usually requires 3 assets,ships,helos,aircraft,or combinations of all 3 to fix the location of a sub.With the advent of UUVs,warships can now add this asset to their anti-sub sensor capability.Long endurance UUVs can be of great help ,patrolling waters sev. nm away from the convoy/task force.

The IN needs a wide range of ASW helos for the various sizes of warships and their hangars ,both existing and planned.12t,10t ,med. and light helos are required.The shallow water ASW patrol craft to replace the Pauks (which have the same hull as the Tarntula missile corvettes),could be larger,under 1000t,perhaps slightly larger than the Nanuchkas that we used to operate,with a helo deck (no hangar),so that they could embark an ASW helo when required to assist in sub hunting.If they have the same speed as the Pauks (40+kts),the additional capability of a light helo ,even naval Dhruv,to scout and prosecute a contact with lightweight TTs or depth charges,will add significantly to the punch of these small craft which will be the workhorses in protecting our coastline,naval bases and ports from sub attack.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 21 Jul 2014 18:45

Navy to get Land in Telangana to set up VLF Station base.

The Eastern Naval Command will get 2,900 acres of land at Dammagudem Reserve Forest for setting up VLF Station Naval Base at Pudur village in Rangareddy district. Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhara Rao has agreed to hand over the land to the Navy for the purpose.

The Navy would pay Rs. 115 crore to the State Government for taking up afforestation and towards the net present value of the land. The Chief Minister told Vice Admiral Satish Soni of Eastern Naval Command at the Secretariat that the State Government would help in transfer of land.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2014 02:02

so, how much forest land is going to be consumed.. i am more concerned on increasing the forest cover along with increasing naval presence right in the middle of 4 sides of land [pun unintended]

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2014 04:37

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ca ... es-2003845
CAG pulls up Navy for over Rs 40 cr lapses
Monday, 21 July 2014

The Indian Navy has come under fire from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The national auditor criticised the navy for wasteful expenditure worth over Rs 40 crore on three counts. It said the navy incurred an 'unfruitful expenditure' of Rs 33.91 crore on dredging maintenance at its biggest command – the western command at Mumbai during peak monsoon season.

A 'wasteful' expenditure of Rs 6 crore on the short refit of coast guard ship Vikram and incorrect payment of Rs 10.24 lakh as 'dip money' to divers were the other two counts. On dredging, the CAG observed that a delay in contract finalisation led the navy to undertake dredging in peak monsoon, which, rendered an expenditure of '33.91 crore unfruitful. Dredging maintenance is undertaken annually to maintain a minimum depth in naval channels and areas for the safe navigation of ships, submarines and other crafts.

The CAG's latest report was tabled in Parliament on Friday. It said the dredging contract between the Western Naval Command and M/s Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd showed "the rates accepted for dredging were very high". "Our further scrutiny in March 2013 revealed that dredging for the next year had to commence immediately, within six months of the previous dredging, which clearly indicated that dredging in monsoon had not served its purpose and the expenditure incurred was sub-optimal," the report said.

The CAG also came down heavily on the navy for making false claims on 'dip money' and held weak internal controls and falsification of official records responsible. The CAG said all qualified divers of the navy belong to a specialised cadre and are entitled to diving allowance and what's called dip money. The Indian Naval Diving Team (INDT), Delhi, is equipped with one re-compressed chamber for practice diving. It has only an eight-diver capacity.

However, between September 2008 and July 2011, on more than one occasion, nine to 65 divers were said to have practised in the chamber. Weak internal controls, improper document maintenance and falsification of official records at INDT led to an incorrect payment of Rs 10.24 lakh as dip money.

The CAG also pointed towards the avoidable expenditure of about Rs 6 crore on the short refit of the Coast Guard ship Vikram. Lack of co-ordination between two directorates were behind this, the report said.
As per Coast Guard instructions for ships awaiting decommissioning/disposal, only essential repairs, termed Essential Repairs Dry Docking, should be undertaken. But an expensive short refit was done on Vikram between July 2010 and December 2010, at a cost of '5.66 crore on Indian Coast Guard Ship (ICGS) Vikram. It was undertaken despite the fact that Vikram was scheduled for de-commissioning in 2010.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 22 Jul 2014 08:29


Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Amitabh » 22 Jul 2014 11:51

Is this a model of the Project 15B (P15B) destroyer by any chance?

chitre
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 11:22
Location: Pune

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chitre » 22 Jul 2014 12:55

Amitabh wrote:Is this a model of the Project 15B (P15B) destroyer by any chance?


looks like the Italian FREMM, not the 15B

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 22 Jul 2014 22:22

ICG should have gone with Dhruv instead of eyeing phoren maal ... long back...

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 73145.html

...

Many warships, which have two hangars onboard are steaming past without even a single helicopter onboard. For instance, between the six Talwar class frigates, which include the recently inducted frigates Teg, Tarkash and Trikand, only three carry a helicopter. Some other frigates don't have even one helicopter between them. Coming to larger ships like the destroyers, one Kamov helicopter is being shared between five Rajput class ships. Remarked a senior naval officer, "The availability of helicopters is at 20 per cent of what it should be. We are sharing helicopters to ensure the show goes on. It is a tragic situation."


....

"It is a crisis on a daily basis. After the Mumbai attacks we had hoped that government attention on coastal security would ensure our demands are met, little really has materialized," said a senior Coast Guard officer.
As per the charter of responsibilities, the ICG is responsible for saving lives within India's Exclusive Economic Zone which extends upto 200 nautical miles from anywhere along India's 7500 km long coastline, intercept and seize contraband, protect environment as well as thwart maritime terrorism. To do all of it, not even a single ship of this force today has an integrated helicopter flight - a concept which was once propagated for every single ship.

The biggest hurdle in doing its duty is its malnourished fleet of under 20 ageing Chetak helicopters and two Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv both which are deployed solely at Porbandar to keep an eye on the International Maritime Border Line (IMBL) with Pakistan. Efforts of more than 15 years to acquire a modern helicopter have been reduced to nothing. To top it, on orders of the previous administration, ICG was asked to 'gift' one of its ALH helicopters to the Maldivian National Defence Forces (MNDF), last year.

Given this situation, the ICG has no option but to position merely one or two Chetaks at every air station. "Plus Chetaks being single engine helicopters, can't fly for too long," said a source.


...

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Jul 2014 09:14


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Jul 2014 11:59

This needs serious examination.The USN is pursuing a rapid induction of its UCLASS stealth UCAV/UAVs.In the 2008 diagram in the report,USN carriers are shown operating off Pakistan,Bangladesh,and China,and in the Arctic Sea with "persistance coverage spanning the entire territory of Central Asia, Russia,over most of China.There is little need for a total coverage of India which already can be done from Diego Garcia.Using just 4 carrier task forces,complete coverage of India,Russia,China,etc.In fact,the entire EurAsian landmass will be under US surveillance.The GOI?MOD thus need to augment our air defences and induct a total holistic air defence system for the entire Indian landmass using multiple sensor systems both ground based and airborne.The development of the Indian stealth UCAV should also be accelerated.The USN will induct UCLASS by 2020.

http://news.usni.org/2014/07/17/latest- ... 234c8f82d4

Latest UCLASS Concept Emphasizes Maritime Roles
By: Dave Majumdar and Sam LaGrone
Published: July 17, 2014

An artist's concept of General Atomic's Sea Avenger UCLASS bid taken from a display monitor. US Naval Institute Photo

The Navy seems to have shifted its concept for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) for a third time in as many years part of the most confusing and misunderstood aviation acquisition programs in the last decade.
At its 2006 conception, the new generation of carrier based unmanned aerial vehicles would be built to extend the inland reach of carrier strike groups a well beyond the reach of the current crop of manned fighters.

In 2011, the Navy and the Pentagon moved to make a lower cost UAV to be quickly pushed into service to hunt terrorists, anticipating a world where U.S. forces could be restricted in flying land-based UAVs as well as act as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) asset when the rest of the carrier air wing was off-duty.

Now, the Navy seems to have again changed the character of the planned UCLASS into an aircraft that will almost exclusively spend its time over the ocean.

“It’s very much part of our maritime package, as part of the carrier strike group,” said Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, principle military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Navy for research development and acquisition, who spoke to USNI News on Thursday.
A 2008 illustration from the CSBA paper: Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System by Thomas P. Ehrhard and Robert O. Work

A 2008 illustration from the CSBA paper: Range, Persistence, Stealth and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System by
Thomas P. Ehrhard and Robert O. Work


The new concept is completely different from what the original progenitors of the program — including current deputy defense secretary Bob Work — had intended, but seems to fit inline with the Navy’s current thinking about maritime threats in the Western Pacific.

The missions now in mind for UCLASS now include permissive airspace ISR and strike initially to start with, Grosklags said. As the program evolves, those missions would expand to more challenging contested littoral and coastal ISR and strike, to attacking an enemy surface action groups (SAG).

The requirements for the UCLASS have been set and that the Pentagon had expected to hold a Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) meeting next Monday, Grosklags testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces on Wednesday.

However, Work has requested a “precursor” meeting ahead of the DAB, which forced the Pentagon to postpone.

Both the meeting with Work and the DAB are now expected next week before the final request for proposals (RFP) is released to the four companies competing: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Atomics and Northrop Grumman. The RFP is restricted even though the most of the document is unclassified.

“We don’t want to compromise the safety of the public,” said Naval Air Systems Command spokeswoman Jamie Cosgrove in an Thursday emailed statement to USNI News.
“The security classification guide was signed off by Navy leadership.”
Cosgrove did not specify which element of Navy leadership approved the classification.

In his testimony, Grosklags said the top-level requirements as set forth in a UCLASS capabilities development document — signed in April 2013 by chief of naval operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert — has been stable for more than a year.

Further, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has looked at the UCLASS requirements over six times— with Feb. 4 being the most recent, U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Joseph Guastella, deputy director of requirements at the joint staff, told the panel.

As currently envisioned, the UCLASS will initially be designed to operate in permissive to moderately contested airspace to provide ISR and a light strike capability to the carrier air wing, Grosklags said.
Proposed operational ranges of UCLASS. US Naval Institute Illustration

Proposed operational ranges of UCLASS. US Naval Institute Illustration

In that initial early operational capability configuration, the aircraft would be able to provide either two ISR orbits at 600 nautical miles from the carrier or one orbit 1,200 nautical miles from the ship. It would also be able to carry a single internal 1000 pound Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) on a 2,000 nautical mile strike mission.

While initial versions of the UCLASS would have an endurance of 14 hours, that could diminish as the aircraft is upgraded to perform different types of missions. “14 hours of endurance is for the specific early operational capability mission—ISRT with limited precision strike capability,” Grosklags said.

“Once we expand into other mission roles with potentially more weapons or potentially more stuff on the aircraft, whether those be weapons, jamming pods, additional sensor pods — you name it—that 14 hours endurance requirement will no longer be in effect in those mission configurations.”

Nonetheless, Grosklags said, some of the designs might still be able to meet the 14-hour endurance requirement even while carrying external stores, but the contractors will not be held to that endurance figure.

The 14-hour endurance requirement was driven by life-cycle costs, according to the testimony of Mark Andress, assistant deputy chief of naval operations for intelligence.
X-47B UCAS. Northrop Grumman Photo

X-47B UCAS. Northrop Grumman Photo

Designing the UCLASS to have an eight-hour endurance, optimizing it for strike and aerial refueling would leave the Navy with an operations and maintenance bill some four time higher than an aircraft with 14-hours of endurance.

UCLASS is being designed for growth, but the internal weapons payload requirement is set at 1000 pounds.

The aircraft will eventually be able to carry weapons and other stores on external hardpoints. The Navy’s only firm requirements for those hardpoints is that they be compatible with the service’s arsenal of weapons.

“The requirement for internal carriage is about a 1000 [pounds],” Grosklags said. “There are requirements for two external 3000 pound hardpoints.”

In terms of survivability, while the Navy will require the UCLASS to be able to increase its stealth capabilities over time, the aircraft may not rely on low-observables.

In keeping with the Navy’s doctrine, it could also use electronic attack capabilities during high-end combat operations. “It could be a combination of both,” Grosklags said.

Grosklags could not comment on what frequency bands the UCLASS stealth features would be optimized for due to classification reasons. However, if the aircraft were not configured as a flying wing, it would necessarily need to be optimized for the high-frequency bands as a simple matter of physics.
An artist's concept of the Lockheed Martin's bid for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). Lockheed Martin Image

An artist’s concept of the Lockheed Martin’s bid for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). Lockheed Martin Image

The UCLASS will not be designed to go it alone inside hostile airspace. Instead, it will be designed to work with other carrier air wing assets like the Lockheed Martin F-35C, Boeing F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Growler under the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct.

“The whole [concept of operations] for this aircraft is that it will operate as part of the carrier strike group, it may also be tasked by the combatant commander… for other missions,” Grosklags said.
“It is not designed to operate lone and unafraid particularly in a hostile environment.”
One of the problems of operating in a highly contested environment is that the enemy will jam the communication between the unmanned aircraft and those who are controlling it. The Navy believes it has a handle on that problem—but cannot discuss the specifics.

“We have taken into account operations into the current threat environment in terms of jamming or loss of communications,” Grosklags said. “We’ve not only looked at the current environment but we’ve also looked at what we expect to see in the future environment.”

The Navy plans to field UCLASS by 2020.

Ranjani Brow

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ranjani Brow » 23 Jul 2014 21:55


titash
BRFite
Posts: 398
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 24 Jul 2014 01:32

I dont think this pic's been posted before...Delhi Class destroyer at Seabird's shiplift

Image

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2014 07:22

Unfortunately p15b has same 32 vls holes in front and small barak1 in back.

what a downer.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 24 Jul 2014 07:54

P15B is the follow on order of P15 class with some changes to the superstructure. The number of ships build in one project is very low. three or four dont make sense. Today we may be able to build upto 7 ships in one go. If the order is split between shipyards, then the order better be raised to around 12 ships so that each shipyard builds around 6. We do have that much requirement and as time passes to counter the massive number of foreign ships in the Indian ocean and the need for IN to deploy in pacific and other areas.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2014 07:58

the top view makes it clear there is space to move the barak1 into two blocks on the side somewhere and replace that with a 32-cell barak8 complex as in the front.

looking at the huge build time of our ships (10 yrs), by 2025 do they think 32cell is going to be adequate with everyone flying around with supersonic ASMs, and stealth planes like J20 and J35 perhaps in FOC. they should keep that space clear even if unused - might be needed for new ASW missiles also to support LRMP drones, unmanned subs and ships and their hot contacts at great distances.

we need to get started on stealthy unmanned ASW ships with a 6 month endurance that can loiter around take load off manned platforms.
they can be armed with mines for sowing and LWT like 16 LWT in a modular torpedo room housing with auto reload. a helicopter deck will permit visits by repair crews and for guiding into port.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Jul 2014 13:27

Lovely pics of the Indo-Russian exercises and the DDG on the sealift.The sleek hull is clearly seen and notice what appears to be the hull-mounted med. sonar under the keel amidships.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/s ... 242496.ece
Searching for the ideal FDI in defence production
Surya Gangadharan

The Hindu NAUTICAL MILES BEHIND: India is a world leader in ship design and building but is poor in electronics, sensors and naval weapons. Picture shows the indigenously developed warship INS Chennai in 2010. Photo: Vivek Bendre

Foreign vendors are more than willing to sell or collaborate but this does not necessarily bring state-of the-art technology to India’s military hardware

When Finance Minister Arun Jaitley kept the FDI cap in defence at 49 per cent, he said: “Our assessment of the market is that the 49 per cent FDI limit in the sector would be a significant step in establishing domestic defence market. The public opinion and Parliament’s opinion in India is ready to accept the proposal that I have made.”

Mr. Jaitley was also in consonance with the policy sentiment that has evolved within the government over many years. As far back as in 2004, key economists argued before the Planning Commission that 100 per cent FDI in high technology would enable India to reduce or limit its technology imports; in 2008, the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council constituted by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had recommended FDI to facilitate technology transfer and enhance manufacturing in strategic sectors like aerospace; four years back, the Commerce Ministry had recommended 74 per cent FDI (a recommendation that remains despite the exit of the United Progressive Alliance government). But former Defence Minister A.K. Antony had vetoed this, deeming it “politically unwise.”

Opposition from industry

With elections in key States set to take place later this year, it would appear that Mr. Jaitley also preferred to play cautious. The chorus of opposition from key industry bodies like Confederation of Indian Industry (which supported a liberal FDI cap only to back down later), and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry would have helped Mr. Jaitley in his decision. FICCI, seen as the “embodiment of the 1960s era state protection”, warned that Indian industry would lose out, foreign companies would dominate the sensitive and highly strategic defence market, and no significant technology transfer would take place. It even brought out a laundry list detailing its views on defence FDI. It said a higher FDI should lead to full platforms being produced with minimum capitalisation of $100 million; the proprietary technology can be indigenised and further developed; the foreign partner will undertake to source 50 per cent to 70 per cent of components/subsystems by value from Indian vendors; the technology received should come without restrictions on its global exploitation and; no retrospective law should be applicable to restrict technology exploitation.

The list underscored the sad fact that when it comes to defence, India’s private and public sector industries lack technology, expertise and skills. India lags far behind the West, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the Technology Standing Index. A 2011 global study by the Martin Prosperity Institute of the University of Toronto measured 82 nations on technology, innovation, human capital and other measures of economic competitiveness, with the focus on Research and Development, scientific and research talent and innovation. Israel topped the list followed by Sweden, Finland, Japan and Switzerland. The U.S. figured sixth; India was 38. India placed 36 in terms of scientific and engineering researchers per capita and 26 in terms of patents per capita.

But the report card is not all that poor. Technologies such as composites or fly by wire have been painfully built up (owing to U.S. sanctions) over many years, entirely through indigenous effort in places like the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Some technologies flowing from the Kaveri engine programme have been transferred to the private sector and these are being exported in the form of aerospace components. But the Kaveri engine itself failed to deliver the required thrust for the LCA Tejas fighter and had to be dropped, its place taken by the General Electric engine.

India is a world leader in ship design and building but is poor in electronics, sensors and naval weapons. To date, the Army lacks a carbine considered essential for close quarter battle. Trials are on to select, from among five foreign vendors, a suitable assault rifle. The Ordnance Factory Board is working on a “improved variant” of the three-decade-old Bofors howitzer. The list goes on.

Foreign vendors are more than willing to sell or collaborate. But a straight sale means India resorts to another import 20 years down the line when the equipment in question has become obsolete. Collaboration does not necessarily result in state-of-the-art technology coming to India. Foreign MNCs that have joint ventures in India are clear that the 49 per cent cap on FDI is “not unattractive.” Helicopter maker Sikorsky’s India head Air Vice Marshal (retd.) Arvind Walia said: “Forty nine per cent FDI is a welcome step but if it goes to 51 per cent and beyond, it will help build technologies here, train local talent and skills. Foreign vendors will bring in new business practices. Higher FDI limits will give us the flexibility to take a call and provide the best solution.”

Others admit it could bring in foreign firms that wish to take advantage of India’s lower cost labour base and of course, 49 per cent equity translates into a larger share of profits. Small and medium enterprises could benefit here as they are all looking to get into the global supply chain but lack capital and technology. The only point is this technology may not be of the high-end variety.

As a senior executive in a multinational defence major in India described it: “Foreign firms need to be in control since it is their technology, developed often at considerable cost, and therefore the need to protect their intellectual property. This is non-negotiable.”

The result is that the movement toward FDI has been slow and halting, with the Defence Ministry blamed for being reluctant to shake off old mindsets and attitudes. Security considerations also seemed to have weighed heavily on the government. Domestic private industry was allowed into defence only in 2001 when the realisation (finally) dawned on the government that the public sector, with its low levels of productivity and virtually no Research and Development vision, would not be able to deliver a self-sustaining military industrial base. There followed a slew of other measures.

In 2003, the Defence Procurement Procedure was amended to include the ‘Buy and Make’ category to allow Indian industry to build equipment through technology transfer; in 2006, an offsets policy was introduced in projects of Rs. 300 crore and above; in 2008, Indian industry was given first preference in licensed production contracts; in 2011, private shipyards were allowed to enter naval shipbuilding; in 2012, foreign vendors were encouraged to tie up with Indian small and medium enterprises.

Other steps followed. In 2013, Indian companies were given first preference in various categories of defence production. A Technology Perspective and Capability Road map was also unveiled to give Indian industry advance intimation of the military’s future requirements. Small and Medium Enterprises were targeted for financial help. Indigenisation directorates were set up by each of the three services to indigenise spare parts and small equipment.

Short of expectations

But results fell far short of expectations. Amit Cowshish, former Financial Adviser (Acquisitions) in the Defence Ministry, wrote recently: “The policy for providing assistance to the small and medium enterprises was drafted by the Department of Defence Production sometime in 2006 or 2007, but it was never promulgated. Consequently, no allocation was ever made under the aforesaid budget head since it was created. The Directorates of Indigenisation continue to function independent of each other and without linkage with the overall indigenisation effort. Suggestions to introduce outcome budgeting for these directorates were treated within the MoD with total indifference.”

The end result was confusion, and, of course, no progress in procurement. It has led some industry insiders to suggest that India scrap the DPP and return to the “good old days” when all deals were government-to-government. At least it ensured the services got the equipment they wanted in the desired time frame. That would be wishful thinking but the last word on FDI in defence is still awaited. Mr. Jaitley said “If I can get technology, capital and manufacturing at 51 per cent Indian ownership.” That’s the challenge.

(Surya Gangadharan is chief editor, Defence and Technology Magazine and a strategic affairs commentator.)

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2397
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 25 Jul 2014 03:54

Indian Navy And Coast Guard To Get 32 Dhruv Helicopters
industan Aeronautics (HAL) has received approval to manufacture 32 Dhruv Mk III advanced light helicopters, to be divided equally between the Indian navy and the country’s coastguard.

Approved by the Indian government’s Defense Acquisition Council, the deal is worth around $1.19 billion, also including spare parts, maintenance and in-service support.

The Indian navy already operates eight Dhruv rotorcrafts, while the coastguard has four, and the first navy squadron to be used for search and rescue and armed patrol tasks was commissioned last November.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vic » 25 Jul 2014 09:32

A very good leg up for indigenisation and kick in balls for import lobby. JUST for the record, the cost of Naval Dhruv is half of equivalent import.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 25 Jul 2014 09:43

Dhruv should be used for all roles (csar,patrol,utility,marcos) except on-ship ASW/ASuW. even utility and plane guard role from our carriers can be given to Dhruvs and the Chetaks retired(finally). ships which cannot take bigger NH90 type helis should be able to use the new folding rotor version of Dhruv.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 25 Jul 2014 10:58

Common sense prevailing at last.

By the way, why did we not have a desi 'fast tracked' ASW/ASuW program in place? The qty is there so where is the gap in basic planning step.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 25 Jul 2014 12:10

^^^^

The more important question is post the ALH, why was a domestic 10 ton helo not developed. The Development of the ALH was essentially complete by the late 90s. A start then could well have given us a replacement for the Mi 17, Westland, and the KA 25s.

The tech developed for which also could have acted as platform for the development for a medium attack chopper. In the same weight class as the Apache.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1922
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Zynda » 25 Jul 2014 12:29

I believe HAL wants to develop a common 10-ton platform for all services. The requirements from each of the services are conflicting so as to prevent freezing of design specs. This information is quite dated though. There might be actual movement on the ground.

Further, I believe HAL wants to complete LUH & LCH before moving on to bigger fish.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 25 Jul 2014 21:14

Any import of helicopters is akin to feeding our competition - don't know why we want kick our own lunch away. It's too late to ponder on this mistake now.

For immediate needs - I would use land based Dhruv and P8-I fleet as we are not going to send our surface fleet in South china for next 10~15 years at least. Enough time to develop a 10 ton helicopter.

ASW for IOR - Best to depend on AWACS fleet as they have huge on-station time+10xCapability+Speed over anything a helicopter can dish out. Network in a 300 km range Brahmos and that's a lot of firepower+Coverage on hand.

ASuW for IOR - Any other land based tech which we can make use of? Dhruv on mainland and Andaman + Lakshwadeep island chains provides lot of coverage. Something along the lines of US SOSUS network would be formidable to sanitize IOR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS - trying to think out of the box and make use of our natural strengths.
Last edited by member_26622 on 25 Jul 2014 21:35, edited 1 time in total.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 25 Jul 2014 21:15

By the way - Check who is competing with Dhruv exports to South America/Africa and Rest of Asia and it's obvious countries go to crazy lengths to keep their defense businesses afloat. French send their PM to peddle Rafale, British send their PM - it's goes all the way to the top level given top dollars to be pocketed.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 26 Jul 2014 03:59

titash wrote:I dont think this pic's been posted before...Delhi Class destroyer at Seabird's shiplift

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vXFrjJJqix8/U ... lift_0.jpg


Hi titash, please post the url or other source from where you got the pic. I would really like to read other info or see more pics published with it.

-Ankit

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Jul 2014 04:44

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 698_1.html
Warship projects running behind schedule: Jaitley
IANS | New Delhi
July 25, 2014

Several warship construction projects of the Indian Navy are running behind schedule, Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said Friday.

The minister told the Lok Sabha that there had been occasions when warship construction projects have had time and/or cost escalation.

He said the major reasons for these include unavailability of warship grade steel, delay in design finalization and receipt of critical equipment or technology, infrastructural constraints of shipyards and delays in development of indigenous equipments and weapons.

Jaitley said the progress of each project was monitored at various levels at the naval headquarters and the defence ministry.

"Naval Warship Overseeing Teams are positioned at the shipyard to constantly liaise with the shipyard to expedite resolution of issues," he said in a written reply to Ranjeet Ranjan and Rajesh Ranjan.

Outstanding issues were addressed during Progress Review Meetings at the naval headquarters, the minister said.

Major issues pertaining to progress and delays in projects, if any, were addressed during the Apex Committee Meetings at the defence ministry, he added.

The defence ministry also undertook modernization of Defence Public Sector Undertakings in terms of infrastructure to enhance productivity from time to time, Jaitley said.

"In addition, various contractual provisions including milestone based payments (and) penalty for delays are built into the contracts.

"At times, delays have been encountered in warship projects with private sector on account of similar reasons and also on account of financial issues."



Naval trainees urged to master nuances of submarine operations

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 481_1.html
Press Trust of India | Visakhapatnam

Chief of Staff, Eastern Naval Command, Vice Admiral Bimal Verma today exhorted Naval trainees to continue to master nuances of submarine operations and put to practice the theoretical knowledge gained at the submarine school.

He said this while reviewing the Passing Out Parade held at INS Satavahana, the premier submarine training establishment of the Navy, during the passing out of the 85th basic submarine course (officers) and the 84th basic submarine course (sailors).

The officers and sailors who passed out today would be joining submarines on the Easter and Western seaboards, a Navy release said here.
Lieutenant Amit Rawat was adjudged as the best all round officer.
Ketan Nerrum, Mechanician Third Class and Pankaj Pathania, Seaman (Radar Plotter I) First Class were declared the best overall senior and junior sailors, respectively.
Vice Admiral Verma presented awards to the trainees on the occasion.
The trainees would now be proceeding for their sea training phase. After six months of rigorous training on the submarines, they will be examined by a board of senior submariners and those qualifying would be awarded the coveted 'Dolphin Badge', the release added.

July 25, 2014

A brief look at German sub ops during WW2 to understand the scale of the ops and global effect it had.

5 Things to Know About Germany's U-Boats
: July 24, 2014 : Updated: July 24, 2014

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The U-166 was deployed as part of Nazi Germany's all-out effort to cut off Britain and other U.S. allies from shipping vital equipment and personnel. It met its end in July 1942 in the Gulf of Mexico, about 45 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River, after a depth charge attack. The U-boat was the primary weapon of the German navy for much of World War II.

WOLVES OF THE SEA

Germany's war on Allied supply lines focused mainly on North Atlantic shipping lanes. But the U-boats — hundreds were built during the war — also ranged into the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. The architect of Germany's submarine war plan was Grand Adm. Karl Doenitz, who deployed submarines in groups known as wolfpacks for unrestricted warfare against merchant ships.

A FORMIDABLE FORCE

As U-boats took their toll on Allied shipping, they also played a role in Germany's propaganda effort. An early success for German dictator Adolf Hitler came in October 1939 when the U-47 slipped into a British naval base at Scapa Flow, Scotland, and sank the battleship HMS Royal Oak. The U.S. Navy, stretched after the December 1941 attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, was hard-pressed to track down the U-boats in 1942 as they preyed on East Coast shipping. Only after U.S. shipyards turned out massive numbers of escort vessels and patrol planes and new tactics were developed did the Navy get the upper hand on the U-boats.

THE U-166

War records show Germany built more than 1,000 U-boats during the war. The U-166 joined the fleet in March 1942 and was prowling the Gulf of Mexico in July 1942 when it torpedoed and sank the merchant vessel SS Robert E. Lee off the mouth of the Mississippi River. A U.S. escort quickly moved in and dropped depth charges, sending the submarine to the bottom. The U-166 was slow — traveling underwater at about 9 mph — and vulnerable to quicker surface ships. Modern U.S. nuclear-powered subs travel underwater at more than 35 mph.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

The U-boat — or "unterseeboot" in German — was first used in World War I by Germany and its ally Austria-Hungary. German submarine warfare on merchant ships was one reason the United States entered the war in 1917. The German navy still designates its submarines as U-boats. The small modern fleet is not nuclear-powered but runs on diesel-electric power.

U-BOATS IN POPULAR CULTURE

Feared and hunted by the Allies during the war, U-boats and their commanders became romanticized over time, especially in the Cold War years when a rebuilt West Germany was a U.S. ally. Among film portrayals was 1957's "The Enemy Below," in which U.S. destroyer captain Robert Mitchum and U-boat commander Kurt Jurgens are cast as noble adversaries as their vessels duel to mutual destruction. In 1981's "Das Boot" starring Jurgen Prochow, filmmakers offered a more gritty portrayal of U-boat life. Visitors to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago can see the U-505, a U-boat captured during the war.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jul 2014 10:55

Many Photos from Indra-2014 , Ranvijay class looks in good shape

http://pressa-tof.livejournal.com/236661.html

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jul 2014 11:03

India asks Russia to upgrade two submarines
MOSCOW, July 25. /ITAR-TASS/. India has asked Russia to upgrade two its submarines, director-general of the Rubin Central Maritime Design Bureau Igor Vilnit said on Friday.

“The Indian governments filed a request to the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation to extend the life of two Russian Kilo Class submarines (Type 877EKM),” he said.

Specialists of the Zvyozdochka ship repair centre and the Rubin design bureau are expected to leave for India to inspect the first submarine.

“We’re optimistic about military-technical cooperation with the new Indian government,” Vilnit said.

Russia and India develop military-technical cooperation since the mid 1960’s. In the mid 1990’s Russia and India signed an interstate agreement on military-technical cooperation. The ten submarines were supplied to India’s Navy from 1986 to 2000.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 27 Jul 2014 11:44

^ The Iranians had successfully overhauled their Kilo Class Submarine "Tareq" in-house, including replacing items with local ones like :
> radar evading cover (anechoic tile?)
> engine parts
> propellers
> radars
They are claiming that after gaining overhaul expertise, they have got capability to build their own major Submarines.

This capability developed with Ghadir 350-400 ton submarine, and the Nahang 750-800 ton submarine.So, even though the Iranians bought only 3 Kilos, they now have a 24 Submarine navy, and have safely escorted over 2000 merchant ships and oil tankers in pirate infested waters.

In our case, we had got capability to do Short and Medium overhauls on Kilos, but due to bad planning , we had to send to Russia.

The Type 209 is more effective and spends longer time at sea than the Kilos. All overhaul information was passed onto us by Germany.

This is the link: http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19970720/20150733.html

Somewhere in the 2000s, the Iranians had sought our help for maintenance of their Kilos. Well, looks like the tables have turned......

From Ukraine Manufacturer, this is list of items for Kilo Overhaul:

IST OF 877EKM CLASS SUBMARINES MAIN EQUIPMENT AND AGGREGATES FOR SUPPLY/OVERHAUL MAIN EQUIPMENT AND AGGREGATES FOR SUPPLY/OVERHAUL
Power electric equipment:
DC electromotors type (P)-11M72 OM5, (P)82M72 OM5;
Starter type (P)(P)P, magnetic controller type CM(E);
Converters type (P)O-20-50, (P)O-20-400,AM(G)-52M, A(P)O-8-400, A(P)(P)-4.
Accessory equipment:
Pump type H(C)B-40/15, H(C)B-100/30, (C) BC-3/40, (E)CH-2/II, (E)CH-10/II, 1B1.6/5-1.5/2, 3B0.6/63-1/25(B)2, 3B-63/25-1-50/4B-2, (E)(C) H-1.5/20, B(C)H-65Y, (E)BH-5/5, (C)H-23.6MBx2;
Electric compressor type (E)K-10-3, (E)K(P) A-2/150, dehumidification blocks for electric compressor type (B)O1;
Refrigerating machines type C(P)MXM60, KX(G)140-1, compressors type (F)B6, 1(F)YY80P;
Air conditioning plant AMK-10(P)C.
Hydraulic equipment:
valves flanged, nippled for high pressure;
air reducer (P)Y-1;
sluice valves, Kingston;
pneumatic hydraulic accumulator type (P)(G) A-60-1;
air-cooling unit type BOM-4, BOM-8, BO(P)-4, 10MB-(P)C, 35MBOO-(P)C;
radial fan type PCC2.5/10…PCC63/40.
Piping of ventilation, conditioning, fuel, ballast systems:
flanges, connectors;
hoses for pressure up to 400 KGF/CM2;
nipple joints.
Elements of loud-speaking communication (P)-400:
amplifier-commutation blocks YK(B);
commutation panels type K-3, K-5, K-10, K-20;
amplifiers TY-25, TY-50, TY-100;
connectors type BP-1, BP-3.
radio stations P-619, P-638, P-634:
receivers, transmitters;
prime amplifiers, intermediate-frequency amplifiers;
connector elements;
antenna elements.
Navigation equipment:
gyro tracer (G)KY-1;
gyrocompass KYPC-10;
log type (L)(G)P.
General mechanical rubber goods:
rings packing (MPTY38-5-6075-67);
armed collars (GOST 8752-79);
collars for pneumatic hydraulic accu-mulator (GOST 14896-75, GOST 6969-75);
glands, cords, plates.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 27 Jul 2014 18:04

An Article by Bharat Karnad about India's Submarine Design Efforts

India’s submarine production
Posted on August 23, 2013 by Bharat Karnad

The Sindhurakshak tragedy raises many issues, among them, the danger of close-berthing of warships and submarines in the crowded Mumbai docks and the need urgently to commission the Karwar base to host most of the Western Fleet and take the pressure off Mumbai harbour and, given the dangerous depletion in submarine strength, the urgency to lease Kilo subs from, say, Vietnam, which has acquired six of them and whose submarine crews are being trained here, and move quickly on Project 75i – the supposed final step before full indigenization of diesel submarine design and production.

Strangely, while the navy’s strategic-minded leadership has a firm grip on issues relating to surface combatants, confidence deserts them when it comes to in-country production of conventional submarines (SSKs). This is perplexing considering the expertise the navy has gained in designing, project management, and system integration in the programme to produce nuclear-powered submarines. As follow-on to the three Arihant-class ballistic missile-firing boats (SSBNs), a bigger, more advanced, SSBN is in the pre-production phase, and a design for nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine (SSN) is nearing firm-up. Navy’s plan was to learn from and absorb the best attributes of the western and Russian submarines and to gain from their differing design philosophies and manufacturing techniques, and to use them to come up with a wholly new design and indigenous production regime for a diesel hunter-killer submarine (SSK) to constitute the navy’s bulk sea denial force. The concept of parallel production lines realized with the selection of the HDW 209 German submersible quickly unravelled with the financial scandal attending on that deal struck during the Indira Gandhi-imposed Emergency of the mid-1970s – a fore-runner of defence scams that have blotted defence acquisitions ever since. Its local production proceeded with the customary delays and cost-over-runs the defence public sector units (DPSUs) are habituated to until it was abandoned. The corpus of hard-gained production competence and industrial skills by the Mazgaon shipyard in disciplines such as high-pressure welding to achieve micron tolerances, were thus wasted because successor governments, including those headed by the Congress party, distanced themselves from the taint of the original scandal. In the meantime, the Russian Kilos were acquired to fill the breach.

Some twenty years on another western submarine was chosen, Scorpene from France. A deal was finalized in 2006 by yet another Congress government and, once again, allegations of illegal payoffs surfaced. But just when the aspect of alongside production of a Russian boat came up and the Amur-class SSK identified as appropriate to the country’s needs, global tendering was introduced. Russia discovered it had to compete for the Project 75i contract with a number of western suppliers, and needed to provide incentives/sweeteners to surpass whatever the competition can muster. In the event, it has made a clever offer the Indian Navy cannot refuse and which consolidates its presence.

This offer is rumoured to have the following features: Russia will lease for $1.5 billion a second nuclear powered Akula SSN – Irbis, lying mothballed in Severodvinsk, to be delivered by end-2014; both INS Chakra and Irbis will be upgraded to Akula-III standard by incorporating the latest technology, including hull-mounted sensors to, for instance, detect thermoclines – thermal layers in the Indian Ocean that make sonar detection difficult and enable submarines to “hide” in them. These sensors will be retrofitted on the Arihant, and equip the two follow-on sister ships. Irbis SSN will moreover come equipped with the Shtil (Storm) torpedo (to also equip Chakra) that can close in on targets at uninterdictable speeds touching 280 knots, and a vertical launch system “plug” accommodating a mix of 40 K-15 land attack missiles and the first of the Indian submarine-launched K-4 ballistic missiles (SLBMs). It will in effect convert the Akulas from exclusively warship and submarine hunters into more versatile platforms able also to reach deep hinterland targets and take out littoral sites with land attack cruise missiles.

The new 75i design will boast of similar weapons profile with Indian naval designers and engineers invited to work alongside their counterparts in the Russian design bureau right from conception all the way to design and delivery stages, thereby enhancing the Indian Navy’s all-round skills and competence to handle submarine design and oversee submarine production generally. In the wake of the Sindhurakshak mishap, moreover, the additional safety of a double hull (permitting high reserve of buoyancy) and platform versatility enabling a single boat to carry out multiple missions – central to Russian design philosophy, have obvious appeal.

It is, in fact, the differences in the western and the Russian design philosophies that have seriously divided the Directorate-General Naval Design-Submarine Design Group at the Naval Headquarters (NHQ), stalemating for long the crucial decision on standardizing the diving depth and delaying indigenization. These differences persist, according to Vice Admiral K.N. Sushil (Retd.), an experienced submariner and former head of the Southern Naval Command, who personally prefers the western single hull design, despite the fact that Western suppliers will not transfer sensitive technologies (such as optronic masts) or do a “lot of hand-holding” that diffident Indian production companies still require, which only the Russians are prepared to do.

The indecision has prevented, he maintains, the establishing of other standards such as for “the operating pressures of the hydraulics and high pressure air systems, pressure hull materials, weld normative, hydraulic and high-pressure air pipelines, manifolds, valves, etc.” common [to nuclear and conventional submarines] and deterred the build-up of local capacity. Were it otherwise, the “scale” of work would prompt investment in the latest tooling and other manufacturing wherewithal to produce different types of submarines by private sector companies, such as Larsen & Toubro, Tata, and Pipavav without whose participation fully indigenized production, Sushil believes, will languish at the elementary level of assembling from imported CKD (Completely Knocked Down) kits the DPSUs are stuck at. The under-utilization of the more capable and efficient private sector, as the regressive-minded defence production department in the ministry headed by the leftist A.K. Antony would have it, means the country can kiss self-reliance in armaments Good Bye.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby merlin » 28 Jul 2014 13:59

So according to Bharat Karnad, the reason for the delay in P75I lies with the IN instead of the MoD!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 28 Jul 2014 14:18

Or perhaps, the MOD can help the navy make its mind by informing them that a decision must be taken and the the time frame in which it must be taken. The navy will come up with a unique set of requirements that are tailored to our needs. As the navy must be aware that, the imported equipment was designed for the requirements of the designer nation and only then offered for exports.

That being the case, a MOD having a clear idea of what it wants from the services is a basic requirement for the services to deliver. Again this clarity is a function of the political class and the clarity in their thinking. Nothing to do with the armed services.

This was missing from the previous dispensation. Clarity of thought and persistence of vision, is the basic requirement that must be delivered from the MOD. The navy will come back with the specifications of the tools with which to accomplish the advocated goals.

As Lewis Carroll said, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 28 Jul 2014 14:43

With Bharat Karnad, it is some time difficult to tell where facts cease and fictions begin...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 28 Jul 2014 15:34

^^^

That may, but he requirement of higher level political guidance cannot be understated. When it comes to the capacity building of any armed service.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_24684 » 28 Jul 2014 17:12

.

damn again ..I think Navy interested in NH 90 ..But kickbacks makes the deal Stall


m.timesofindia.com/india/Scam-wary-govt-defers-decision-on-naval-copters/articleshow/39130722.cms

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby merlin » 28 Jul 2014 18:31

rohitvats wrote:With Bharat Karnad, it is some time difficult to tell where facts cease and fictions begin...


Could be.

But he is better connected than most of the folks here so some of the things he says may be true. In any case this is the first time I'm reading someone say delay lies with IN for P75I.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3482
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 28 Jul 2014 22:08

For all the debate and though that goes on within the navy and MoD, I find no advocates for second hand purchases to boost numbers.

Aside from the one off Jalashwa, there are no second hand purchases in modern times since Viraat was bought from the UK. A couple of two seater SHARs were acquired, but we declined further buys even though UK retired their fleet en masse.

Surely there are servicable Kamovs and Sea Kings that we can rapidly buy to augment the fleet?

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 28 Jul 2014 23:32

Irbis status , even if a rumor is very interesting .

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 29 Jul 2014 07:00

@ Aditya G - Instead of secondhand Jalashwa, we should just snoop the Mistral design from Russia.

We can churn out hulls for sure, plus have other components like propulsion (GE LM 2500 turbines) and Radar (LW08) sorted out for commonality.

Spares is a key challenge with secondhand equipment which basically is like paying tomorrow instead of today. With a modern hull and common propulsion+radar/electronic systems, we can have best of both worlds. I am simplifying this to a great extent but commonality across basic building blocks ensures high uptime - just the way US Navy operates.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests