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.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 02 Oct 2014 08:16

thousand apologies if already posted...

Project 75 Scorpene seems to be progressing nicely, the number of bells and whistles being added is bound to make it feature rich...

1) IN is equipping the Scorpene for Spec Ops and Network Centric Warfare (NCW). it would be linked to IN's dedicated MilSat GSAT-7 (Rukmini) with S band SATCOM. See more info @ http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/09/scorpene-project-75-submarines-being.html

2) IN is also equipping it with Ku band SATCOM from DCNS. see more @ http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/09/indian-navy-scorpene-project-75.html

S band SATCOM typically provides low data rate communication and KU band SATCOM provides high data rate communication.S band is typically for space to Earth communication typically high mobility, short duration, complex signals and frequent changes in signal parameter in the most dense electromagnetic environments, KU band is for voice and broadcast service.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Oct 2014 08:54

Karan M wrote:
chetak wrote:One painstakingly develops, guides and nurtures it's suppliers while the other treats them as adversaries only.

Suppliers react very differently to such customers and look constantly for a way out
At mid management level, I have seen jokers who forcibly grab source code from helpless suppliers threatened into silence and present the very same as their original work during promotion boards. Height of deception.


Like I said, no offense intended, your inability to look beyond your own likes/dislikes is making you reach some really wide reaching and "out there" assumptions. The above is a typical case " One painstakingly develops, guides and nurtures it's suppliers while the other treats them as adversaries only. - which are just plain wrong based on the reams of information available publicly for so many programs on this forum itself.

But wait, lets leave that aside. Lets just say that many folks have had the opportunity to discuss the work of many suppliers working with DRDO across many programs & there is a wide commitment to both the national endeavor as also those folks at DRDO who recognized their capabilities & slogged to get them involved in the supply chain. Far too many programs wherein suppliers take immense pride in their work & are recognized as such.

I visit a small srilankan firm which makes a few high tech major aerospace products supplied directly to two major aerospace clients to be used directly on the aircraft and not as minor part of any subsystem or LRU. This is much more than is made by any repeat any player in India, be it big or small. There are many such firms in srilanka alone. Not even talking of malaysia or china where we also go


So what exactly is the big deal? I can show you firms in Belgium which supplied systems which were not available in France. France<<< Belgium.

Sorry, but such "anecdotes" are irrelevant because they precisely demonstrate how easy it is to miss the wood for the trees. Are parts being sourced from Norway for the JSF reflective of Norway>>>US in aerospace?

Or should I bring up how a large WW MNC wanted to make high grade electronics in India and waltzed away to another location because of GOI flatfootedness..

Lets be clear here - there are dime a dozen firms in India making items in India which wouldn't have, if not for ISRO/DRDO. Not that both succeeded in all their requirements. Zimble. Not taking sides..

Another warrior enters the arena and claims greatness by dissing ISRO??


I think the point that you are missing here is that it is you who set up the irrelevant and quite pointless ISRO vs DRDO comparison based on a dodgy premise. Its kind of the argument method of saying "my team is better than your team". And you end up provoking the response "heck no, the other team is much better than your favorite".. in which case you yell "outrage!!"

The bigger point though, getting upset about smoke, after setting a fire is facetious.

My response is actually: "err, sir, both teams are actually working w/each other & represent much the same face". That is since I don't have an axe to grind against either & nor do I agree with your flawed comparison.
Apples to apples. Otherwise akin to saying NASA is better than Lockheed's fighter division or Antrix is worse than Elop's fire control unit. Hard to take any such things seriously.


Sirjee,

firewalling?? not answered yet and you are not going to because you are simply blowing smoke :)

Don't put words in my mouth. Everyone knows that both organisations source nationally as well as globally. No harm done. Many things are not made here simply because of economies of scale or lack of capability. Are we going to improve?? Surely we will, in the fullness of time.

In the meanwhile the Forces are just not willing anymore to be jerked around by jokers on extension and whose political maneuvering abilities far over shadow their technical prowess.

Narayan murty says under promise and over deliver and many folks have taken this sentiment to heart but have only reversed the premise.

The Forces are customers of both organisations in many projects. If the customer is not satisfied then they have all the rights to speak up. Personal bias on my side did not / does not lead to generation of those customer complaints which existed long before I arrived and will exist long after I am gone. Are they all biased right from the beginning?? Surely, even you know the answer to that one.

Have I faced the brunt of dodgy products?? Yes I have. Am I upset?? Yes I am. Am I not allowed to speak up?? I am going to whether any one likes it or not. Am I going to compare one with the other?? This was a free country, the last time I checked.

I have the right to admire / not admire any organisation. why the khujili?? Is it affecting my perception of non ISRO orgs?? maybe but then so what?? because this is the majority view of the customers consistently conveyed for the past so many years and publicly expressed by folks far more erudite and capable than I.

Is the supplier right and the customer wrong?? It simply does not work like that. Is the customer asking for the moon?? Which customer in the world does not??

Especially when the supplier is demanding that the customer put the suppliers products where the customer's mouth is. Does this happen elsewhere?? On the scale that it happens here, I seriously doubt it.

Finally, do the customers deserve better, when they are forced to put their lives in jeopardy, time and time again, some poor jawan?? You tell me.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 02 Oct 2014 15:45

chetak wrote:
Finally, do the customers deserve better, when they are forced to put their lives in jeopardy, time and time again, some poor jawan?? You tell me.



First of all, very nice, very spirited discussion with both pluses and minuses being threshed out.

The customers, Chetak ji, have to work with the developers in order to breed this particular chidiya which is called "technical development"

The armed forces have to work with the developers , DRDO who have to work with the suppliers.

In fact, the bean counters also have to work with these guys - the armed forces take decisions and the bean counters stop them from happening many a times. No wonder there are so many touts and middlemen just employed to make things happen - and they do a valuable public service , if seen from this angle.

In the case of ISRO, they are pure scientists in nature. They launch a mission successfully, laudable though it may be, it is not as critically answerable to a customers needs and wants as are DRDOs products. So they do have some leeway that DRDO does not.

All the more reason that DRDO excel to greater levels in its operations, but it does not.

Yahan ka system kharaab hai saar. Kya karein.

Modi ji - DRDO, MoD, Forces, and MoF ko real time mygov.in type ki facebook type ki social networking website banwaa dijiye - jisme har project ki timelines, and achievements and funding requirements and expenditure likhe hue hon!

Stake holders ko real time mein patha chal jayega ki kya status hai kiss project ka, aur kiss wajah se wah atka hua hai.

* this message is cc-ed to Arvind Gupta - BJP IT head.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 02 Oct 2014 15:52

Karan M wrote:Common sense is apparently uncommon. India is not exactly a babe in the woods when it comes to developing technology or seeing who does what. Enough said.


Precisely.

Let's say it again.

Point no1.: If possible, read Arun_S's old analyses. Proves quite simply that Indian missile ranges are quoted to be much lower than they actually are.

Point no2 : Our rockets are quite accurate. Recent martian activity has proven this.

1+2 = we can put a rocket up the rear of anyone, anywhere on this planet, and possibly even the next planet if we try real hard.

Mods - if this is a "loose lips sink ships" kind of post, please evaporate it.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Oct 2014 16:40

ISRO is moving into manned systems and aren't they flight testing the prototype manned module soon??

What happens then?? The entire argument turns on it's head??

Who will be manning such a system?? Some eminent outstanding scientist, no doubt??

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 02 Oct 2014 16:57

Hail mother Russia then, by the way what is IAF going to do about the crew module being made by HAL ??? Oh wait designs by mother Russia all safe onlee !!!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Oct 2014 17:01

mahadevbhu wrote:
chetak wrote:
Finally, do the customers deserve better, when they are forced to put their lives in jeopardy, time and time again, some poor jawan?? You tell me.



First of all, very nice, very spirited discussion with both pluses and minuses being threshed out.

The customers, Chetak ji, have to work with the developers in order to breed this particular chidiya which is called "technical development"

The armed forces have to work with the developers , DRDO who have to work with the suppliers.

In fact, the bean counters also have to work with these guys - the armed forces take decisions and the bean counters stop them from happening many a times. No wonder there are so many touts and middlemen just employed to make things happen - and they do a valuable public service , if seen from this angle.

In the case of ISRO, they are pure scientists in nature. They launch a mission successfully, laudable though it may be, it is not as critically answerable to a customers needs and wants as are DRDOs products. So they do have some leeway that DRDO does not.

All the more reason that DRDO excel to greater levels in its operations, but it does not.

Yahan ka system kharaab hai saar. Kya karein.

Modi ji - DRDO, MoD, Forces, and MoF ko real time mygov.in type ki facebook type ki social networking website banwaa dijiye - jisme har project ki timelines, and achievements and funding requirements and expenditure likhe hue hon!

Stake holders ko real time mein patha chal jayega ki kya status hai kiss project ka, aur kiss wajah se wah atka hua hai.

* this message is cc-ed to Arvind Gupta - BJP IT head.


mahadevbhu ji,
The last I heard, the customers were really really tired of working with these suppliers. They are a resigned lot now.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Oct 2014 17:04

Sagar G wrote:Hail mother Russia then, by the way what is IAF going to do about the crew module being made by HAL ??? Oh wait designs by mother Russia all safe onlee !!!


Who do you think HAL is making the module for?? and do you really think that it's a HAL design or simply build to print??

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 02 Oct 2014 17:10

chetak wrote:Who do you think HAL is making the module for?? and do you really think that it's a HAL design or simply build to print??


Comprehension problems as well, sigh !!!!!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Oct 2014 17:29

Sagar G wrote:
chetak wrote:Who do you think HAL is making the module for?? and do you really think that it's a HAL design or simply build to print??


Comprehension problems as well, sigh !!!!!


I like this forum. I intend to stay. I have nothing more to say to you.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 02 Oct 2014 17:36

chetak wrote:I like this forum. I intend to stay. I have nothing more to say to you.


No need to get fidgety, I didn't ask you to leave but trashtalk will be answered back. Enuff said.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3415
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 02 Oct 2014 18:56

Part 2 of the Article on naval doctrine

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/a ... e.html?m=1

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 345
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 02 Oct 2014 19:03

Sagar G, please stop the verbal spat with Chetak. People are entitled to their opinions. Thanks for your cooperation

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2014 19:10

Everyone knows that both organisations source nationally as well as globally. No harm done. Many things are not made here simply because of economies of scale or lack of capability. Are we going to improve?? Surely we will, in the fullness of time.

In the meanwhile the Forces are just not willing anymore to be jerked around by jokers on extension and whose political maneuvering abilities far over shadow their technical prowess.


I am not too familiar with the Indian scene on such matters (or am to a limited extent).

However, India has been offered the latest-n-greatest in supply-chain/MRO techs. I do not know where this offer stands. *But*, IF it is accepted, expect dramatic changes. Most, if not all, of the complains should stop - it will take some time. It was offered during MMS times, but should be a better fit (with intelligent cities, e-governance, etc) under Modi.

The look East, link West policy should help this along too. There are other nations eager to see India join.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 02 Oct 2014 22:20

Aditya G wrote:Part 2 of the Article on naval doctrine
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/a ... e.html?m=1
nothing new is either of these articles... As usual he has played down IN's capabilities and placed the Pakees on a pedestal. the wheels came of the wagon when he described the P3C Orion as having a "12 hour endurance to hunt for Subs and ships from Krachi and launch Anti ship cruise missiles from a 50 Km distance". no mention of Indian LRMPs (We have TU142, IL38Ds and the P8Is apart from the multitude of Dorniers with IN and ICGS).. I would imagine Pakees in DefnDumb forum would go into raptures after reading it...

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 02 Oct 2014 23:08

^^ Ajai Shukla stating the obvious again.

Importing Sonars (towed) and so on will likely not work for us. Sonar performance is very much dependent on geography and no shortcuts to long term tuning and continuous improvement work really. Importing is best an interim solution and effectiveness is to be seen. If the navy held back for so long they likely know about performance degradation ....

Reading up on Astute submarine sonar - Apart from 'sensing' technology, major improvements seem to be in 'processing' capability - quoted as 'Her listening ability is quite awesome. She has a sonar system with the processing power of 2,000 laptop computers -has sonar so sensitive it can hear other vessels 3,000 miles away'. Designated the Sonar 2076 Stage 5 programme, this upgrade will replace the existing inboard processing equipment with an open architecture COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) based processing system. Expensive gear as they spent 60 million $ on sonar+sensors http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tha ... ars-02690/

We should embark on similar home grown project and deploy combination of static arrays like US SOSUS (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/us ... /sosus.htm) with massive land based signal processing, and roll this technology in to our nuclear submarines. Our natural land mass protrudes in to Indian ocean combined with island chains make for a perfect opportunity to deploy these sensors.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28722 » 03 Oct 2014 00:01

Shrinivasan wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Part 2 of the Article on naval doctrine
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/10/a ... e.html?m=1
nothing new is either of these articles... As usual he has played down IN's capabilities and placed the Pakees on a pedestal. the wheels came of the wagon when he described the P3C Orion as having a "12 hour endurance to hunt for Subs and ships from Krachi and launch Anti ship cruise missiles from a 50 Km distance". no mention of Indian LRMPs (We have TU142, IL38Ds and the P8Is apart from the multitude of Dorniers with IN and ICGS).. I would imagine Pakees in DefnDumb forum would go into raptures after reading it...

He also missed their our first 90% Indian ship was an ASW platform.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 03 Oct 2014 01:22

chetak wrote:ISRO is moving into manned systems and aren't they flight testing the prototype manned module soon??

What happens then?? The entire argument turns on it's head??

Who will be manning such a system?? Some eminent outstanding scientist, no doubt??



chetak ji,

I'd like to discuss this topic with you sometime, offline. Here its getting long winded.

May I email you ?

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 03 Oct 2014 01:37

chetak wrote:Who will be manning such a system?? Some eminent outstanding scientist, no doubt??


This actually made me LOL, since the first thing that came to my mind was , with ref. to my last post, an eminent scientist in a re-entry vehicle going up the rear of an Indian enemy.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 03 Oct 2014 01:37

Not sure why BR keeps debating Shook-law's article. The guy is a snake oil peddler and half the times has no idea what he is talking about.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 03 Oct 2014 01:39

Bheeshma wrote:Not sure why BR keeps debating Shook-law's article. The guy is a snake oil peddler and half the times has no idea what he is talking about.


Not sure why people who have actually served in the armed forces, unlike many arm chair generals around here, do not get taken seriously.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2706
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JTull » 03 Oct 2014 02:00

So this guy is now suddenly an expert in all matters related to armour, artillery and now even navy?

He doesn't have any better credentials than armchair generals here, but is certainly more dangerous as he always has a hidden agenda.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 03 Oct 2014 03:06

mahadevbhu wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:Not sure why BR keeps debating Shook-law's article. The guy is a snake oil peddler and half the times has no idea what he is talking about.


Not sure why people who have actually served in the armed forces, unlike many arm chair generals around here, do not get taken seriously.


:rotfl: if this jackass who flip flops on t-72 to arjun and cannot even tell the specs of P-3c vs Tu-142 is an expert then I am the defence minister of India.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 03 Oct 2014 03:37

chetak wrote:Sirjee,

firewalling?? not answered yet and you are not going to because you are simply blowing smoke :)


Sirjee, I am not going to debate all this on an open forum while you engage in rhetoric. Kindly go figure whose interests, your questions about fire walling & such topics serve. :)

Suffice to say, it would have been easier to take your pronouncements seriously before you let loose about supply chains & this & that, whilst making glaring errors which anyone who has followed procurement could see through.

Don't put words in my mouth. Everyone knows that both organisations source nationally as well as globally. No harm done. Many things are not made here simply because of economies of scale or lack of capability. Are we going to improve?? Surely we will, in the fullness of time.


Oh ho ho! So now suddenly, you start talking of "economies of scale or lack of capability" and "both organizations source nationally and locally", a page or so back you were claiming both firms completely operate independently, ISRO doesnt import while DRDO onlee imports and what not, and Sri Lanka Malaysia are ahead and what not (yup and so are Belgium/Norway vs France/US by same logic) ..kya mazaak hain sirjee.

Boss, you are not making sense because you wrote completely bizarre stuff to begin with.

You can claim what you want now, but facts are facts, one of which is that there are only some firms which can supply some items & ISRO/DRDO/private/public firms all work with those firms. Its what it is.

ISRO/DRDO/above firms are not consumed with hatred or one versus the other and are merely focused on getting stuff done.

As matter of fact, even the current MOM mission is reliant on hardware developed by a third party Indian firm owned by yet another third Govt agency, which works for both DRDO & ISRO..

In the meanwhile the Forces are just not willing anymore to be jerked around by jokers on extension and whose political maneuvering abilities far over shadow their technical prowess.


Yes, yes, the forces are not willing yada yada, now you speak for them, as well as ISRO...

Last I checked a number of officers are on deputation to labs to get their items developed inhouse. All maya onlee, their pride in what they are doing is completely false only..

In short, several folks are not willing to be jerked around by the yehudis, by the Russians or the wine folks either & are gritting their teeth and getting the stuff done. They have learned the hard way.. and continue to learn.. no surprise then that a lot of one service's critical sensor imports are on a decline..

That apart, dear sir, no matter how much you wish the reverse were true, the import candy shop is closing. The word is out. Our economy has bigger fish to fry as well and import programs which take up money equal to the entire health spend in critical areas are no longer sustainable. The idea seems to be picking up when stuff like this appears from even the ever ready import lovin' authors:
http://www.janes.com/article/43164/indi ... nt-venture

All for dinky toys that are paraded on Republic Day, yet we cant afford sustainment for protracted periods because everything is imported (as versus subsystems or COTS stuff) & the ordinary jawan doesn't even get BPJs and basic stuff..

As regards "political maneuvering capabilities"- lets just leave that dawg aside, because if we go down that path, the kind of rubbish that has been happening everywhere, including the forces will just give enough PR to those who use this against India.. unlike you though, I am not consumed by blind hatred against any one group to score brownie points using dirty linen..

Narayan murty says under promise and over deliver and many folks have taken this sentiment to heart but have only reversed the premise.


Ah, the great sage shri Murthy.. the man who was all for meritocracy and what not and suddenly we have something different.

Whom will you quote next sirjee? Ombaba on peace processes since he won the Nobel peace prize?

The Forces are customers of both organisations in many projects. If the customer is not satisfied then they have all the rights to speak up. Personal bias on my side did not / does not lead to generation of those customer complaints which existed long before I arrived and will exist long after I am gone. Are they all biased right from the beginning?? Surely, even you know the answer to that one.


Sirjee, personal bias on your part is what leads you to ensure that you ignore the positives and rant about minor trifles and even attempt to point score using petty legal judgements. Itna dislike hain, to objectivity gaya tel lene..thats all I pointed out. But not all see through your eyes as well & your attempt to selectively tar & feather one group using incorrect data is not really accurate either.

As regards forces being customers of both organizations, again this is the sort of dubious generalization that renders your comments so frivolous.

The proportion of DRDO programs that are for the services is many many times more and for obvious reasons & the challenges they deal with (including in large part the services) are also quite different and hence more in scale.

Next, I do happen to know a bit about the joint programs, and the slippages involved, so please, ISRO (or for that matter any organization in India) unfortunately does not have magic powder to sprinkle on lack of core technology and make it go away (for instance Rohini before it did get through, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 334153.cms), and even the folks they depend on or work with are the same.. enough said on that as well.

Have I faced the brunt of dodgy products?? Yes I have. Am I upset?? Yes I am. Am I not allowed to speak up?? I am going to whether any one likes it or not. Am I going to compare one with the other?? This was a free country, the last time I checked.


Speak all you wish, rant all you wish, since its a free country, I am equally entitled to point out where you are making completely incorrect claims & that the chip on your shoulder is so large that it has consumed your sense of any sort of objectivity, which cannot even see the progress made. That too, is being part of a free country.

Dodgy products etc, lets just say that if the list of dodgy imports was catalogued, it would be be an endeavor by itself.

I have the right to admire / not admire any organisation. why the khujili?? Is it affecting my perception of non ISRO orgs?? maybe but then so what?? because this is the majority view of the customers consistently conveyed for the past so many years and publicly expressed by folks far more erudite and capable than I.


And many of the customers who do work with aforesaid organization and have begun to understand the complexity of the tasks required, now say the opposite after having experienced the tender mercies of spares and logistics for their imported gear. We had several folks who work on programs like the ALH had their pride in those programs, speak for itself (in contrast, your anecdote was about how a naval officer "tore someone up" for suggesting something yada yada").. again, the contrast in attitudes speaks for itself.

Things will change & are moving in the right direction, given our unique issues in the country (less said the better about the specific aspects which drove imports).

Your view is that "I am right to be prejudiced, because hey, some folks have been so & I will be so" - like I said earlier, go ahead and hate 'em. But please don't be upset when folks see that your hate makes you speak for everyone else whom you don't represent, eg all suppliers to DRDO, ISRO etc & that your anecdotal evidences hold as much water as do anecdotes everywhere.

So in short, sirjee..in that, I see the khujli on your side, perhaps not used to folks countering your points perhaps? Its much the same elsewhere, like I noted about the other gentleman holding forth on the LCA, sirjee - folks with fixed viewpoints tend to get very hot under the collar when faced with counter points.

There are two reasons I'd counter your bias.

One, is the same reason why I'd speak up when somebody lets his/her dislike of the state overwhelm reason & start blaming the IA et al non stop for "repression" & so forth in J&K and similar stuff. Similarly anecdotal based personal dislike - "I was stopped by IA, they were hostile to me in my place". Much the same way I see the Tehelka expose on the Assam Rifles now being used to bash the services by many folks in the NE saying "All are like this". The Kashmiris I meet online hate the Indian Army with a passion - they too cite similar claims of "majority view" and speaking on behalf of everyone in J&K etc.

Second, and this is a larger issue at play here, that these ego driven tirades against any one group paint, by the erudite and capable folks you reference, paint a completely lop sided picture which then act against the Indian national interest.

Whether it is the hate against the IA which vitiates its image and hence leads folks to consider dropping its deployment in J&K. To manufactured hate against DRDO which serves the interests of arms lobbies who stoke the flames & piggy back on the one sided views as shown in your above posts.

Much the same as seen even during 1999, when folks with similar views to yours loudly poured scorn on even valid technological achievements & the fighting prowess of the Indian state, and more attacks were launched on India as a result. In short, whether you realize it or not, the one sided tirades of those who claim to be more erudite & capable, harm Indian national interests far more than the organization/s they claim to loath. Ironic.

The role played by these patsies, has been picked up elsewhere as well.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... n-pak-lwe/

Written by D K Singh | New Delhi | Posted: June 17, 2014 2:06 am

When, over the weekend, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of self-reliance in arms, he endorsed what his National Security Adviser Ajit Doval has been advocating for long.

As director of the Delhi-based think tank Vivekananda International Foundation, Doval wrote in February 2012: “There is a powerful lobby in the country supported by a still more powerful and cash rich network of arms manufacturers and their front men who have a vested interest in stemming India’s indigenous defence production programme… Denigrating the capabilities of our scientists, DRDO and DPSUs is a part of this campaign.”


Oh BTW, this was squarely targeted at the MOD:

“For acquiring self reliance — cutting across the barriers of public and private sectors, the Indian Defence Ministry can perhaps take a leaf from the experience of ISRO which outsources components, hardware and sub-systems for its launch vehicles and satellites from the Indian industrial units, both in the private and public sectors.”


And lest you use this to engage in more DRDO bashing, this sort of stuff is what prompted the above:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/02/a ... s-for.html

Because the DRDO wishes to select its suppliers as it wishes in ALL programs without MOD forcing one DPSU over a more deserving candidate, DPSU or otherwise.

Doesn't manage suppliers, doesn't engage in localization yada yada.. lets see..more unhappy suppliers here - go on, do a private versus public count:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ozA9K_v6zG4/U ... tium-3.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TUzhqD9J4wE/U ... tium-4.jpg

Merely a sample sirjee.

And please don't give me the gyaan that this is an exception, not true in all programs, only Brahmos (nope, across IGMP actually), only IGMP (nope, across many DRDO programs actually)..

So, please - I can see the damage these "erudite and capable" gentlemen you reference have done via their one sided propaganda and whose interests they actually serve as useful patsies. One is constrained by their prior records & the deserved respect they earned in their earlier stints, to actually not harshly judge the harm they are doing the nation via their intemperate claims on such topics.

But one's personal likes and dislikes don't stop the progress.

Since anecdotes are a rage, there was a gent who hated Indian orgs et al so much after his org had issues with the Prithvi program and BARC on some other project that he became a lifelong BARC/DRDO basher..still to be found on many fora vociferously cursing them. Free country and all that.

I am sure he too has many reasons to be upset, but even as he complains, the Agnis keep rolling out, the reactors keep getting built.

Is the supplier right and the customer wrong?? It simply does not work like that. Is the customer asking for the moon?? Which customer in the world does not??


Oh please, sirjee.. five minutes back you were complaining about how suppliers were mistreated by a customer, and now you are going the other way. There it was all about how customer should work with suppliers for joint success, ISRO does it, and now its supplier is wrong, customer is always right.

Please make your mind up.

Humor aside, the above just shows how badly your arguments are structured. In the services case, yes, the customers have asked for the moon many times, and in some cases it was justified, some cases it was not.

The bigger question is whether the services have a structured method in place to even posit or project their needs. The answer is to a large extent, no. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2007/05/c ... needs.html

This BTW is something what many folks have been hammering on about for ages. Its more of an institutional challenge than some conspiracy since developing a R&D, development mindset requires a significant investment of time and effort. India's orgs were developed on a British template for a colony and they didn't have that for us planned and we didnt inherit it. Lack of MOD interest and direction meant that apart from some progress in one service, rest have languished. This has led to the usual problems.

Hopefully things will change in the future.

Especially when the supplier is demanding that the customer put the suppliers products where the customer's mouth is. Does this happen elsewhere?? On the scale that it happens here, I seriously doubt it.


Gross over simplification again, because the problem is simply the customer suppliers involvement is the crux of the issue here, which would otherwise ensure that its no longer a supplier product but a customers jointly developed product.

As versus your claims of "it only happens here" and its all cheese and wine elsewhere, I submit:
Germany
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/c ... 977202.htm
US
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE
India w/Russia
http://miragec14.blogspot.in/2014/09/in ... ss-of.html

Before you claim rhetorical advantage sirjee of saying "oh see things are different, they said its an issue", German AF Chief comes to India selling those very same EFs with which he has an issue and doesn't name call his people in public, the amount of money spent on all those programs and the Khan one dwarfs combined Indian R&D for all programs spend by a significant margin.
And third link - private feedback, no tons of leaks about how dodgy Russians are messing us up, why is that, pray tell. Ghar ki murgee dal barabar and all that. Sorry sirjee, your anecdotes about how great their stuff is pales before similar anecdotes about how great their support was elsewhere as well.

Kindly read through the above & if there is anything that is an "Indian problem", its that some erudite and capable folks adapt differing standards for different providers.

Finally, do the customers deserve better, when they are forced to put their lives in jeopardy, time and time again, some poor jawan?? You tell me.


Ah, yes, the "its the jawans at risk" argument, which we have thrashed out in discussions time & again, never mind that nobody exactly argued that they be put at risk & that they have been at risk & more so, because of dodgy imports seen through at immense cost and very little capability.

Less said about that the better because even collating all the known/public information on an open forum to show the reality & the depth of the issue doesn't serve Indian interests well.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21403
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 03 Oct 2014 06:16

^^^
The same old and tired arguments are being trotted out once again.

Over many decades, the ratio of projects taken up to projects successfully delivered to satisfied customers tells it's own story. Proof of the pudding and what not.

Let's just leave it be.

I am sure that both of us have other fish to fry as opposed to getting banned.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 03 Oct 2014 08:38

The problem with people like Shook Law writing like this is that he mixes facts vs fiction, many poeple take this as the gospel truth and Dothi Shiver. He needs to be taken apart. We did this to the Brochure Chor... I am planning to refute him point for point tonight

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2014 08:55

The problem with desi development and wares is that most often,even if successful, the inordinate delays bring with it obsolescence,as global tech would advanced at a faster pace.Aiming too high as we did with the LCA,esp. the engine,also brings with it failure to clear the bar.I cannot see us for the next 2 decades being able to do with out a mix of firang eqpt. bought outright,the same licence built at home,some JVs,desi designs with firang input esp. in weaponry,and desi products that show much promise like the LCH. As far as sub tech is concerned,it is our weakest link.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Oct 2014 11:08


Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 03 Oct 2014 12:08


During the 50-day voyage, guided-missile destroyer INS Mumbai, stealth frigates INS Talwar and INS Teg, and tanker INS Deepak will establish "maritime bridges" with the littoral states of the Indian Ocean.
One Destroyer, Two Frigates and a fleet tanker is an impressive show of force. A 50 day voyage is not a simple thing. Kudos to IN for planning this. Can any guru give their gyan about any other deployment which is longer or further than this? The Voyage of INS Vikramaditya from Russia to Desh comes to my mind.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 03 Oct 2014 18:50

Why only 1 ship for IBSAMAR? What are the other 3 doing? Doesn't IN have a radar site in Madagascar??

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20292 » 04 Oct 2014 23:33

Karan m ....your posts are awesomely informative and very personal at the same time...

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3415
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 04 Oct 2014 23:37

http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/09/24/t ... destroyer/

THE GREAT ASIAN SHOWDOWN : INDIA’S KOLKATA CLASS V/S CHINA’S TYPE-52D DESTROYER
September 24, 2014 · by N.R.P

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2014 05:56

chetak wrote:^^^
The same old and tired arguments are being trotted out once again.


Actually, lets recap, you began the whole thing with your "old and tired arguments" with your apples to oranges comparison of different orgs with different requirements.

As matter of fact, even Ashok Parthasarathi, a mere former S&T adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Secretary to the Government of India in several S&T departments - has pointed out how and why it didn't stand on any solid ground. Those interested in serious analysis can read what he says.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a ... 558609.ece

First and foremost, the Cabinet Minister for those commissions is no less than the Prime Minister himself. So, the chairmen of those commissions have direct access to the very head of government. There is not even a Minister of State in between. Where such a Minister of State has been brought into the picture, his only role is to lighten the burden of the Prime Minister in answering parliamentary questions and other matters related to Parliament. The commission chairmen meet the Prime Minister whenever they want to and also submit files directly to him/her. This gives both chairmen unrivalled power.

Second, the commissions are small and compact and the membership is at a very high level e.g. both the principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the cabinet secretary are invariably members of the commissions. As for scientists, not only is the chairman an eminent atomic/space scientist or engineer, but he is also the secretary of the executive arm of the commission concerned viz. the departments of atomic energy or space. The members (R&D) of the commissions are usually the directors of the largest or principal R&D centre of the atomic energy and space programmes respectively viz. the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). To give the commissions the semblance of not being entirely “in-house affairs,” one eminent scientist from outside the atomic and space programmes is also made a member. But most often the scientist concerned has little detailed knowledge of the atomic or space programmes. So, the commissions are, in fact, wholly in-house structures de-facto.
Continuity till realisation

Third, and very importantly, exactly what projects the departments or R&D centres concerned should take up and how the entire atomic and space programmes should be structured in terms of goals, modalities, sequences, costs and time frames of realisation are defined by the chairman and the member (R&D) as an internal process. In other words, the programme goals are chosen and then attempted to be achieved by the same people. We thus have a situation of a “self-fulfilling prophesy.” There is no one to ask, for example, why there should be a Chandrayaan programme related to the Moon, or, the Mars mission and/or whether we, as a nation, should not set ourselves a different set of goals. This may be contrasted with the situation of the DRDO which has users external to it viz. the defence services and it is those services who define and set programme and project goals.
Success and failure

Fourth, as the goals of the atomic energy and space programmes are set totally internally, there is none to hold the commissions and departments concerned accountable for failures or project delays or escalations in project costs of a very large magnitude, e.g. the prototype fast breeder reactors in the case of atomic energy and the GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle) in the case of space. In contrast, in the case of the DRDO, the defence service concerned and the Secretary (Finance) in the Defence Ministry call in such circumstances not only for project reviews but, on occasions, for project termination and the going in for the import of the weapon system concerned, quite apart from massive pillorying of the DRDO.

Fifth, in atomic energy and space whether one should go in for import or pursue further R&D on a badly delayed project is a decision taken by an entity that is both designer and developer and user rolled into one. For example, if Chandrayaan succeeds or fails, there are no external consequences or implications. However, in the case of defence systems under design and development by the DRDO in one of its laboratories, the consequences of success or failure have a direct bearing on national security and the credibility of the DRDO in the eyes of the Defence Minister and all other elements of the Defence Ministry.

Finally, and partly related, is the fact that the DRDO is doing its design and development under the overhang of constant lobbying by foreign suppliers, that the defence system concerned is either too complex and difficult for the DRDO to release or that the DRDO will need much more time to develop it, whereas they can supply the system to the defence service concerned practically off the shelf! Such a situation just does not arise in the case of atomic energy or space.

To sum up: setting up a defence R&D commission will make little difference by way of increasing self-reliance in defence systems and equipment, or changing for the better the relations between the DRDO and the defence services because of the fundamental dynamics of that relationship. What it can achieve, however, is to increase the administrative and financial powers of the DG, DRDO and the autonomy of functioning of the DRDO laboratories. Though a more modest achievement, it may still make it worthwhile to have a commission for the DRDO.


Or un-common supply chains, when the reverse is clearly the case. Merely one in a long list of such firms... facts as they stand.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140925/j ... C8I5xazzI4

Crucial components

Central Tool Room and Training Centre is associated with Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) for the last 20 years. Aerospace components for the polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV) that carried the Mars orbiter spacecraft worth about Rs 2 crores were manufactured at the centre and supplied to the Isro for the inter-planetary expedition. The order was received in 2012 and it took nearly a year to manufacture and supply the products, an official said.

Among the crucial parts made in Bhubaneswar include dynamically-tuned gyroscopes (used to provide direction to the satellite), solar array drive assembly (helps keep the solar panel perpendicular to sunrays for energy) and advanced inertial navigation system (navigation aid to calculate position and velocity of the spacecraft).

This apart, components to monitor the level of fuel, control and regulate its flow to various parts of the shuttle had been supplied by the centre. The centre has been supplying products for missiles of DRDO, including Agni and Akash, besides the Tejas and Sukhoi aircraft.



Over many decades, the ratio of projects taken up to projects successfully delivered to satisfied customers tells it's own story. Proof of the pudding and what not.


Sorry, this is yet another example of using the wrong sort data to derive incorrect conclusions. What many decades and what projects undertaken? Mere number plates and claims that so and so org was founded in 1942 or started in 1950 as some stores establishment, renamed so and so lab, is just eyewash sort of stuff.

Any serious analysis of R&D effort would note that the organizations truly got funded & tasked to deliver in the late 70's onwards, with even the 80's engaged in basic infrastructure. Where were the programs earlier, apart from some half baked TDs here & there and a few minor programs.

Most of the programs before that were mere eyewash in terms of complexity (only a handful of exceptions with the PNE, the missile TD etc). The people who drove those programs are long gone.

Lets take a look at the serious, large interdisciplinary programs.

The IGMP was started in the 1980's. The LCA in the mid 80's (on paper at least). The Arjun which was hobbling around in EME as a Vickers derivative got a serious look in the early 80's..apart from a few token electronics programs and a couple of half supported missile programs, there was no national mission oriented program & the services ran on imports for the most part. Everything, infrastructure to manpower had to be built up.

Furthermore, unlike the Armed services, which were required by the colonial power & were hence built up all the way from the 1800's till independence, albeit with critical restrictions (eg in command and certain equipment), local industrial capability in India was not encouraged for high value added items. In essence, we were a mere overhaul & repair facility for the most part in defence, till post independence when at least some TOT began. It actually took the 1971 war for even basics like mortar ammunition & arty ammo to be focused on by Indira Gandhi's expansion of the state industry thanks to seeing all the realpolitik driven embargos earlier.

There is invariably a learning curve involved & if we were to ignore that, is the performance & capability of the Indian Army today, the same as it was in 1947, led & staffed predominantly at command level by Brits before that? Or what of the 1962 & 1965 wars and the learning involved (in the latter both for the IA & IAF?) In fact, as recent as 1999, the IA & IAF had a wake up call when taken by surprise by an enemy which didn't play by the standard playbook & were caught flatfooted & then reoriented & did what they had to.

Point is, experience matters & the same yardstick has to be applied everywhere.

As far as "ratio of projects delivered etc", the last decade speaks for itself. Cumulatively the orderbook in 7 years till 2011 was 100K crores, which speaks for itself (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/r ... 076132.ece). Until & unless the services suddenly relaxed their standards, which we are all aware they have not (case in point the Tejas FOC/MK2, or the Arjun itself).

BTW, the numbers have only gone up significantly thereafter, with several big ticket programs (eg Akash, 23,300 Crores by itself) placed - not too bothered about digging out the links because the trends speak for themselves.

This is the exact reason, why carping on bygones & pointless negativity actually takes away from indian strategic & conventional deterrence as versus contributes to it.

If the same discredited arguments are used to heap scorn on products and programs which have come good despite teething troubles, the wrong perception remains & given the increasing portions of local gear in service (3 out of 6 tendered radar programs went local, IAFs key SAM is local, our key strike missiles are local etc) - we devalue not only the effort but also the deterrence factor of inducting these expensive items.

Creating an image of weakness, just to score points can come back to bite us hard. As matter of fact in 1999,
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jul/27inter.htm

What would you say are the factors that led to the Kargil conflict?
...So they thought the Indian Army's back is broken. For instance, in an article published in the month of February or March, their ex-DG ISI General Javed Nasir had written that the Indian army is not strong anymore and can be taught a lesson. This misperception led to wrong deductions and actions on their part. Mainly, they thought they could get away with it.


At the very same time, merely relying on imports is not going to do the trick either, as their problems are also widely known by now.

Let's just leave it be.

I am sure that both of us have other fish to fry as opposed to getting banned.


You are free not to engage in the debate.
I fail to see why banning is an issue, when I haven't violated any board rules or the like.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 05 Oct 2014 14:52

Shrinivasan wrote:
sohamn wrote:Any idea on what this new ship is ? Never heard of such a ship getting constructed in HSL.
Sohamn, this is an OSS (Ocean surveillance Ship), see my post earlier today... this seems to be like an Naval version of MNREGA designed to provide some work to HSL, but digging deeper, IN is beefing up its deep ocean surveillance capabilities.
Our current crop of survey vessels are 500Ts to 2000Ts, this tips the scale @ 10,000T, and this looks like the displacement of the ship alone, with its (literally) boatload of sensors, it could climb up further.


As you suspected tips the scales at a lot more than 10,000T . Tips the scale at 14,700T. See Appendix C on Page 13 of the HSL tender linked:

Tender

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Oct 2014 13:51

the profile of the HSL new ship matches the missile telemetry and tracking vessels which are operated by china and many others.
http://www.grubsheet.com.au/wp-content/ ... c69a94.jpg

these will presumably provide us better ability to monitor and track ICBM launches deep into the southern indian ocean for splashdown off the antarctic landmass. a secondary role could be monitoring other countries missile and rocket launches and ELINT gathering given the huge amts of space and electrical power available onboard vs a sub or ffg.

these are too big to be sea bottom and oceanographic data gathering ships meant to prepare data for our submarine fleet.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3812
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby hnair » 06 Oct 2014 14:12

good ship 8)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4901
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kartik » 06 Oct 2014 14:14

New developments in the field of submarine propulsion..Japan looking to move from AIP to Li-Ion batteries for the Soryu class submarine.

Japan makes major sub propulsion switch

Japan has decided to power its new batch of Soryu-class submarines with Lithium-ion batteries instead of air-independent propulsion (AIP) technology — a move that could raise eyebrows after similar types batteries were faulted for fires aboard the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

However, experts brush aside those concerns and instead say this type of technological leap increases power and performance, while reducing maintenance. It also could make Japanese subs more marketable overseas.

....

For the Navy, Kojima said AIP technology, which reduces the speed of submerged submarines to just a few knots, is being increasingly seen as too slow for emerging strategic uses and that the Navy regards AIP as maintenance intensive. Improvements in batteries make this technology the better long-term bet.

Bob Nugent, a consultant at naval consulting firm AMI International, said it is “plausible” that going to Li-ion batteries will provide more speed and power.

The Soryu-class is about one-third larger than most European subs that use AIP technology, he said, adding the increased power and energy density of the batteries would allow for longer cruise and sprint bursts of speed.

...

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 07 Oct 2014 09:04

arun wrote:As you suspected tips the scales at a lot more than 10,000T . Tips the scale at 14,700T. See Appendix C on Page 13 of the HSL tender linked:
Thanks for sharing the Tender... there are many nuggets of information in it... here they are
1) Endurance: 14K KM @ 14 Knots.
2) No of Persons: 300 ?????? This does not seem to be be a surveillance vessel.
3) Max Speed: 21 Knots
4) Displacement: Approx 14700 Tonnes, so it could be still higher...

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Oct 2014 13:34

300 is a huge number for what is a non-warfighting ship. ULCC/Suezmax ships operate with 20-25 crew total.
since there will be no weapons, this 300 means a large hotel capacity for scientific personnel incl civilians needed to operate the radar and other electronic mission suites. hope they leave some spaces for modular fitment/upg of kit like the LCS ships.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Jaeger » 07 Oct 2014 13:52

Could this also be a hospital ship?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests