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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 24 Dec 2014 21:07



I saw a Sea Harrier without it's engine and thrust vectoring devices. It was absolutely shocking to see the amount of space devoted for making STVOL happen - almost everything behind the pilot was devoted for just this. It's easy 3x the amount of space for F-16 or Mig-21 engine cavity.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 24 Dec 2014 21:11

Any 50000 ton carrier or ship better be nuclear powered - otherwise the fuel bill will at the minimum be 300 million $ every year.

Nuclear power unit is costlier but it does not expose us to fluctuating oil prices at least. Plus most of it will be an upsizing of Arihant tech except imported Uranium fuel rods while Oil is 100% imported ...

anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby anand_sankar » 24 Dec 2014 21:32

@Nik

Do your math before commenting.

If the fuel bill is $300 million per year, the carrier will have to burn 119 million liters of fuel oil per year. (Fuel oil is today around $300 per barrel. So you can buy 1 million barrels for $300 million. One barrel equals 119 litres)

:rotfl:

member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28840 » 24 Dec 2014 21:43

^^
Even though the cost of fuel is dropping now, it is not going to be the case in the future.
Considering the life of a ship is 30 - 40 years (and we invariably end up using it even after that)
Look up 'Peak Oil' and tell me that the cost of fuel is going to be the same 300$ (adjusted for inflation of course) say 20 years from now when the carrier is 10 years old (considering a 10 year build time, although we are unlikely to achieve this)

A figure like 300$ million a year might seem absurd right now, but it will happen at some point within the lifespan of the new carrier.

Spend more now to ensure availability in the future.

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 26 Dec 2014 08:40

I dont know if this has been discussed before: Indian Def Min has approved constitution of a ‘Core Committee’ to identify suitable Indian shipyards to bid for construction of 6 submarines.

I wonder why a committee needs to be setup to figure out which yard will build the P75I?

Is it not obvious to the powers that be that MDL and L&T -the two yards with submarine bldg experience - should split the work of building the selected design under P-75I?
By this I mean that MDL and L&T would be the prime contractors. MDL could assemble 3 and L&T could assemble 3 boats. Other yards could supply hull blocks or equipment if they have the rather specialized capability. In the longer term, such capabilities could be developed using smaller mini sub designs. Else MDL and L&T and their supply chain is probably adequate to do the job.

All involved entities would be held accountable for slip ups. That is to say, no passing the buck.

In fact, addressing a more fundamental question: why waste time and money looking for another design for P75I when a suitably updated Scorpene design would have made fiscal and operational sense and ensured timely delivery?
Take the case of the basic Kilo (Pr. 877/636) design being progressively upgraded over several decades to remain operationally viable well into the future.

comments welcome.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 26 Dec 2014 11:32

maz wrote:...In fact, addressing a more fundamental question: why waste time and money looking for another design for P75I when a suitably updated Scorpene design would have made fiscal and operational sense and ensured timely delivery?
Take the case of the basic Kilo (Pr. 877/636) design being progressively upgraded over several decades to remain operationally viable well into the future.

comments welcome.


It appears to be due to IN's requirement of a VLS module on the vessel. IMHO we could have simply continued Scorpene production leaving the VLS capability to SSNs and SSBNs.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8204
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 26 Dec 2014 11:36

I am unable to understand the rational for the P 75 I. We are paying the price of a nuke boat for a conventional boat. At that price it would make more sense to continue to build the Arihant class and re-task them as Brahmos shooters.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Dec 2014 12:20

Take a dekko at the latest VAYU,spl. 40th yr. anniv issue and excellent features on the IN. Lots of info about the P-75I requirement,the various contenders analysed.The Amur appears to be in the driving seat not only for very innovative features,commonality of weaponry (Klub,BMos,etc.),syste,s,etc.but also because of cost. Furthermore,the Rusdsiana nd Indian AIP systems follow the same path/concept unlike German,French and Swedish AIPs who have different systems. The Amur offer is a built-in-India sub to its requirements using the latest Russian sub tech. The cost is also expected to be not more than that of a Kilo which would be between $300-400M only.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Dec 2014 17:03

Opportunity knocks?

http://rt.com/op-edge/217543-india-russ ... eper-deal/

Opportunity for Russia? India cancels $1bn minesweeper deal with S. Korea

Rajeev Sharma is a New Delhi-based journalist, author and strategic analyst.
Published time: December 25, 2014 10:20

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi (R) waves to a gathering as Russian President Vladimir Putin watches during the inauguration of
An opportunity has arisen for Russian shipyards to tap the Indian market, with New Delhi canceling a billion dollar deal with South Korea for the supply of eight Mine Countermeasure Vessels (MCMV) to the Indian Navy over suspected irregularities.

An MCMV is designed for the location of and destruction of naval mines, combining the roles of minesweeper and mine hunter in one hull.

Strategically, the MCMVs are of crucial importance for all countries as terrorists become more and more tech-savvy and embark on newer ways to wreak mayhem. India and Russia are no exception. There were several intelligence reports recently in India conveying threats from terror outfits from the sea.

In early November, the port of Kolkata in West Bengal was put on a high alert after intelligence reports warning of a possible terror attack by well-trained terrorists with help from Pakistan Navy elements. Two warships, INS Khukri and INS Sumitra, were ordered to set sail as a pre-emptive move.

As many as 41 ships and vessels of different parameters are currently being constructed in India at a cost of $32 billion. However, given the current security scenario, the role of MCMVs is of increasing significance for keeping sea lanes mine-free, protecting naval assets and for clearing minefields near enemy shores for launching offensive attacks.
Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship (Image from wikipedia.com)

India has previously done business with Russia with MCMVs. The Indian Navy currently operates at least seven aging minesweepers bought from Russia four decades ago.

But before we elaborate on the Russian angle in this context, it will be in order to give a brief background on India’s cancelation of the MCMV deal with South Korea.

Cancelation of S. Korean contract

The Indian decision, the first major decision taken by Manohar Parrikar after taking over as defense minister on November 9, was formally conveyed to South Korea earlier this month, Sitanshu Kar, chief spokesperson of the Defense Ministry confirmed to this writer.

The South Korean company Kangnam Corporation had worked hard for years for the minesweeper deal with the previous government headed by Manmohan Singh and had won the competition in 2008 by quoting the lowest price for the minesweepers.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government inherited the South Korean minesweeper contract along with a major lacuna – the suspicion that Kangnam bagged the deal with the help of a middleman, which is a big 'no-no' for the Indian Defense Ministry. The matter was further complicated as the Korean company refused to give a guarantee that no middleman was used to clinch the MCMV deal.


Manohar Parrikar (AFP Photo)
Manohar Parrikar (AFP Photo)


The BJP government was extra cautious about the minesweeper deal as one of the clauses of the deal was that the Koreans would deliver two fully built MCMVs to India while the rest of the six boats would be built by Goa Shipyard Limited through technology transfer.

Manohar Parrikar is from Goa and is a former Goa chief minister. He felt that the MCMV deal negotiated by the previous government could be a trap for him and the BJP.

However, the Defense Ministry has not blacklisted Kangnam Corporation for the simple reason that blacklisting invariably backfires as the rest of the companies having required specialization take advantage of the situation and jack up their prices.

India’s Defense Acquisition Council (DAC) has given its approval to Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) for construction of all eight minesweepers for the Indian Navy, with the option of additional vessels. The Indian Navy requires at least 24 MCMVs urgently.

The Indian government is likely to encourage roping in a foreign vendor for the MCMV project. This is where the Russian angle comes in.

How Russia can be on board

Russia is working on its own MCMV project: Aleksandrit class minesweeper (Project 12700). The new Russian minesweeper is being constructed for the Russian Navy. The first ship was laid down on September 22, 2011 and was launched in June 2014.

Currently four ships are planned to be constructed but Russia plans to induct 30 minesweepers in its navy by 2050. The Russian MCMV’s hull is made of monolithic fiberglass, which gives it advantage in minesweeping. The vessel’s USP is that it is capable of detecting and destroying all kinds of modern sea mines, even if they are silt-covered.

At a time when Indian is looking for foreign vendors who have proven expertise in building MCMVs, Russia can throw its hat in the ring. This could be Russia’s wild card entry into a new defense area of MCMVs and get on board with the Indians at this opportune time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is eagerly looking toward foreign companies’ participation in his pet ‘Make in India’ scheme.

But this is not going to be easy as the South Koreans won’t be throwing in the towel. Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj would be in South Korea this weekend (December 27-28) to attend a meeting of the India-South Korea Joint Commission.


India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi (2nd L) speaks to Russia's President Vladimir Putin (6th R) during their meeting at Hyderabad House in New Delhi December 11, 2014 (Reuters / Mikhail Klimentyev)
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi (2nd L) speaks to Russia's President Vladimir Putin (6th R) during their meeting at Hyderabad House in New Delhi December 11, 2014 (Reuters / Mikhail Klimentyev)


The Koreans will definitely be raising the MCMV issue with Swaraj. India has not shut the door on South Korea. Its problem was only with regard to its concerns on the suspected involvement of middlemen.

Moreover, India would not like to let the cancelation of the MCMV deal affect its bilateral relations with South Korea, an important country for India over the larger issue of its strategies in dealing with China. Political ties between India and South Korea were put on a very high pedestal by the previous UPA government and the Narendra Modi government is also keen on continuing with the same policy toward South Korea.

India and South Korea have a bilateral trade of $17 billion and Joongyu Lee, South Korean ambassador in New Delhi, went on record as saying at an event in New Delhi on 18 December that the two countries had the trade potential of $100 billion.

What the Russians can do is to convince India of their utility and proven expertise in the area. But Moscow will have to take the initiative. It could be a multibillion dollar opportunity as the two sides can sweeten the deal for themselves by developing these vessels for joint exports as well.

This may well be a low-hung fruit as boosting defense exports is a stated objective of the Modi government. If all goes well this could be another input in consolidating Indo-Russian defense ties, a priority area for both New Delhi and Moscow.


The report is fair assessment of the issue.One would not like to harm relations with SoKo ,but they could still be maintained through other deals.The IN would require at least 24 MCM vessels for sanitizing the approaches to its bases and ports in view of the huge;ly increased sub threat from the Sino-Pak combine.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JTull » 26 Dec 2014 17:53

MoD is falling into a familiar rut. This minesweeper construction and Avro replacement decisions need to be taken and pretty soon. Else, the dalals will be coming out of the woodwork again.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 26 Dec 2014 19:53


maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 26 Dec 2014 21:48

Re unrealistic budget estimates (lowball figures), I wonder if it may be difficult for the Navy and MoD to obtain funding at the early if more realistic figures were used? But the IN has managed to obtain approvals for other projects like P-75I with ridiculously large estimates on the other hand. Or it may really be that there is a lack of sufficient institutional expertise. Which is unfortunate given that this happens to almost every project.

It is interesting to note that force levels are planned to be almost 200 ships and submarines. This is a very significant jump from the present force levels of 15 subs incl. Chakra and Arihant; around 123 (not 127) commissioned vessels incl 2 STS +1 INSV but excluding the numerous FIC & ISV operated by SPB; and 240+ aircraft.

I am counting 123 vessels since some have been lost/transferred/decommissioned in 2014.

Actually, Naval Aviation force levels are growing quite rapidly despite the wfu of Kirans, Islanders and some Chetak losses as growing numbers of MIGs, ALHs, P-8I, Hawks, Dorniers, UAS/UAVs, KMs, KAs enter service.

It remains to be seen what the breakdown of the 198 ship navy will be. We can take a guess from known programs.
Submarines: 24 and the balance 174 will be surface ships.

11-12 SSN/SSBN
18 SSK - this is 6P75. 6 P75I plus 6 more
3 or so SOV - why so few?

3 x CV
R11 (IAC 1) - enter svc 2019 tentatively
R33 (Vik)
R22 (IAC 2) - still a decade away

DDGs
3 P15
3 p15A
4 P15B
2-3 modernized SNF

FFGs
3 P16A
3 P17
6 Pr.11356
7 P17A
3 more Pr 11356 from Russia (possibly to replace 3x P16s)
4 P28 ASWC
possibly 8 more to replace P25/25A
4+5+7 NOPV
16 SWASWC - these will likely replace the 4 Pr.1241PE in service
16 other corvettes - most likely the replacement for the 12 Pr.1241RE small missile corvettes or for the P25/25A
4 more WJFAC plus 14 FAC in service
5 INFAC (Super Dvora) - most likely to be replaced by ISV/FIC

4 AOR (tankers)
5 FSS (tankers)
4 MPSV (110m, 3500ton)

4 survey ships to replace part of existing fleet of 8(7)
at least 4 other large survey ships
1 survey training ship
6 smaller survey vessels (cats)

8 MCMV but 24 req'd

3 CTS

4 LPD
8 LCU
5 LSTL
unknown numbers of LST / LSTM replacements but most likely 1:1 replacements - possibly 10 vessels

1 OSS
1 AGOR


Discussion points:

I wonder why the IN does not simply order 12 each of the P15B and P17A from various PSU and pvt yards instead of doing the piecemeal approach in from so many different sources. ? If these are designed to have modular combat systems (Stanflex, MEKO),then they can be easily upgraded going forward.

The same applies to smaller combatants and MCMV. Have a base hull that can be stretched as required. Hulls can be built of composites or steel as req'd. Same modular concept. Tailor the vessel to the mission.

for local defence/ harbor defence, large numbers of 23m composite hulled ISVs can easily be converted to cheap ASW platforms with commercial towed sonars and depth charges.
I also wonder why it isso difficult to build fully outfitted hull blocks? Could the shipyards not experiment with fully outfitted hull blocks on the small 50m WJFACs before rushing off to issue global RFI's seeking foreign partners?

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 348
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby maz » 26 Dec 2014 22:01

Survey ship Nirdeshak decommissioned on 19Dec2014

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 580482.ece

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Dec 2014 15:58

Maz is spot on.Using similar hulls for different roles ,esp. for the smaller warships and craft and modules that can easily be replaced depending upon the mission/role,would help standardization ,training and maintenance/support. I can't see us not importing some warships and subs -to quote from the CNS in Vayu,while praising our indigenous efforts said that "ever MDL project was delayed". The cost overruns too are enormous,looking at the IAC-1 for example.Indigenisation is all very well,but at what cost? We cannot be profligate.Our local yards must be as competitive as foreign yards.Why do developed western nations also get their warships and subs built on occasion on foreign yards? because its cheaper! Our new warship exports will have to be meticulously managed every step of the way if we are not to suffer losses for delays.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5786
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vishvak » 27 Dec 2014 23:06

I think we should start building more ships considering the fact that Sindh and Balochistan may not oppose any action by Indian coast guard againt piracy.

member_28730
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28730 » 27 Dec 2014 23:49

.... The courage and selflessness of personell rushing to the helideck is exemplary. However it looks to me a badly organized "emergency response". I have some background of helideck operations and safety on civilian offshore helidecks. Whenever there is a chopper operation there are two teams of emergency crew each having 3-4 personnel standing by on either side of the helideck. There wear full fire protection gear and the primary firefighting means is the HD foam applied through a special appplicator fitted to the fire water hose as the main hazard is heli-fuel fire in any emergency involving a chopper crash.
Depending on wind direction one team lays down high density foam on the fire and this is laid down by aiming teh nozzle high allowing the foam to fall down gently thus killing the fire by smothering it with thick foam. At the same time the second team uses a spray type fire nozzle to make a water curtain to keep the heat away and makes a penetation attempt to rescue people. To support them there will be a medivac team with stretchers and oxygen masks etc etc. This is taught/drilled again and again, the case in question looks like a text book case for an operation like this.
The happenings in the video looked very unprofessional or atleast disorganized to me, also the foam or powder tank they wheeled out seemed in adequate..had it been a full blown fuel fire on deck this would have perhaps realized a lot of harm. Again , I beg yr pardon this is not to berate people, but just pointing out procedural issues.

member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28640 » 29 Dec 2014 16:10

SJha on the strides being taken in Sonar technology:
Quoting in full :
With the advent of ever smarter and faster anti-ship missiles, many navies around the world have shifted their focus to the underwater dimension for credible offensive maritime capability. In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Indian Navy (IN) has therefore decided to focus heavily on staying at the cutting edge of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability especially in light of increasing sonar contacts with Chinese attack submarines both diesel-electric (SSK) and nuclear (SSN). The cutting edge element of successful ASW operations however comes from potent intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) technology relevant to submarine tracking and detection. Modern underwater detection systems obviously leverage digital technologies to both increase the efficacy of sensors by improving the signal to noise ratio (SNR) as well as to facilitate network-centric operations to using dispersed sensor nodes.

The digitisation of sonar systems over the years has allowed them to stay in the game despite appreciable advances in radiated noise management for submarines. Indeed it could be argued that passive sonar would have lost its relevance had it not been for the arrival of digital signal processing (DSP) and array beam forming (ABF) techniques on the scene. Passive sonar essentially involves processing the sound signal generated by the target for estimating its bearing and characteristics through spectrum analysis. Now received noises with SNR of -15dB or below are very common at the receiver for passive sonars. When one adds reverberation and scattering, especially in modern littoral environments plus the usual issues related to variable sound speed due to salinity and refraction on account of thermoclines, it is evident that without high-end data processing passive sonar would have struggled to stay contemporary with threats despite the fact that passive sonar does not betray its own location to a potential contact.

For most of the 20th century highly trained sonar officers classified and recognized targets by actually listening to their radiated noise. Given the complexity of today's environment this has been substituted by microprocessors running DSP schemes increasingly based on hybrid methods such as a combination of hidden markov methods and artificial neural networks. This has considerably improved the detection and classification of targets by passive sonars. The 'gain' required for target tracking in passive sonars is of course provided through the use of beamforming techniques.

Naturally all this has greatly increased the need for computational power coupled with huge memory and large I/O bandwidth to run DSP methods on the information extracted which includes direction of arrival, speed of the contact, the bearing rate, dominant tonal frequencies, shaft rpm, and the number of blades. As such high performance digital signal processors and PowerPC-based boards are now standard hardware found in the sonar back-ends. For instance in sonars developed by DRDO's Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Kochi, DSP functions have been implemented using high-speed digital signal processor boards based on open standards using TMS processors.

Processor speed is of course upgraded over time. The latest TMS for instance offers 160 GFLOPs of peak performance per device with eight cores and is found in pairs on a 6U VPX form factor board. This means that the total peak processing power of the board is 320 GFLOPs and it supports 1 GB of DDR3 memory and 128 MB of NAND Flash and 32 MB of NOR Flash. The total power dissipated by the board is approximately 80 W. Just a few years ago the maximum speed of such a board was only about 24 GFLOPs thereby indicating that while the performance of the overall electronics it rising, the space it occupies is getting downsized through what is being called 'hardware compression'.

However even as the processing back end leverages the joys of the digital revolution, advances in reception hardware have also made a difference. A sonar is ultimately as good as the transducers that convert acoustic signals to electric ones for the signal conditioning unit. In the case of a passive sonar, acoustic transducers today are broadband omni-directional hydrophones that merely listen to underwater sounds and are mostly made of piezoelectric ceramics, but could also be made of magneto-restrictive or electro-dynamic materials. For deep water hydrophones i.e for use on submarines themselves, acceleration balanced technology is considered mature with deep water passive arrays being able to operate at depths of up to 600 metres and at a frequency of 10 Hz.

Now transducers can not only be hydrophones i.e receivers but be projectors for underwater transmission as well. Transducers of the projector variety are of course the relevant type for active sonars that emit pulses of sound waves that travel through the water and process the received target echo to estimate the range, bearing, and Doppler of the target.

The rise of modern quietening technologies started a trend a decade and a half ago whereby navies today mostly field low frequency (LF) active bow and hull mounted sonars operating in the 100 Hz to 1 kHz bands, with passive sonars now mostly found in towed array, dunking sonar and sonobuoy configurations. The range performance of LF active sonars is far superior to those of passive ones as they are less affected by propagation mechanisms that scatter high frequency signals. Moreover active sonars are also sought for their ability to defeat thin anechoic coatings on target submarines.

However submarine stealth is not a one-time game and given the need to detect them beyond the range of their heavyweight torpedoes has meant that active sonar architecture too is moving towards towed arrays and dunking sonars. The winch and cable configuration keeps a towed array's sensors at a distance from the ship's own noise sources, greatly improving SNR, and thereby increasing potency in detecting and tracking quiet, low noise-emitting submarine threats, or seismic signals.

In terms of transducer technology this is leading to the adoption of LF flextensional type transducers instead of the tonpilz type since the former has much better power handling capacity, and power-to-weight and power-to-size ratios. Either type can of course serve as both projector or hydrophone. The transducers in hydrophone mode obviously receive the returning signal from the target. In fact most active sonars today also have passive modes (active cum passive) both in hull mounted types such as NPOL's HUMSA-NG or in towed array types such as NPOL's ALTAS which is heading for final user evaluation trials in 2015. In the future as thin line towed arrays for small unmanned sea vehicles (USVs) become common, the focus will shift to micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) based transducers that are miniaturized sensors integrated with signal conditioning, interface circuits and other electronics.

Active sonar technology is of course also utilizing the DSP technology and processor technology mentioned above. However given space constraints power amplifier (PA) technology too is evolving for active sonars with a focus on compactness and energy-efficiency which is why new sonars are mostly using IGBT or MOSFET based PAs.

The overall submarine detection game is however also moving towards increasingly networked arrays in the form of sensors in multi-static mode whose data can be shared with each other or fused together at a centralized decision junction. Networking facilitated by the ability of individual sensors to channelize ever increasing amounts of data allows signals to be integrated over a wide area which can be harnessed by both local and/or centralized processing. Many constituents of such a network could easily be USVs some of which may operate passively while others may serve as a noise source. After all passivity does have the advantage of not giving away a sonar's location to a target.

Wide area ASW sensing therefore has the potential to render choke points and littorals far more difficult for submarine operations. Especially if combined with sonobuoys carrying GPS locaters which are typically deployed from airborne vectors. The data from the GPS module is collected using a microcontroller and is transmitted through antenna in frequency shift keying (FSK) format. The receiver decodes FSK input and sends it through an ethernet interface. With GPS data for every sonobuoy now available beamforming techniques using tomographic algorithms under development turn the entire sonobuoy array into a large steerable virtual hydrophone leading to more accurate bearing measurements and increased sensitivity.

Any network however is only as good as its wireless communications system. NPOL's 3-G Underwater Wireless Acoustic Communication System (3G UWACS) now upgraded to a product called Triton, is one such example. Triton, according NPOL offers a tunable wideband communication capability using a software defined radio (SDR) architecture over multiple bands in voice and data communication modes between surface units and submarines. This system incorporates advanced modulation and coding techniques in addition to data recording and analysis features. It offers the user flexibility in operation and supports remote operation and monitoring through standard networking technologies critical for platform-level integration. The system can be utilized in stand-alone or integrated modes of operation.

It is clear that heading to the future underwater detection systems are going to become more networked with several small unmanned platforms operating in concert with defending ships and submarines to develop a common underwater picture for operations. This dispersal of assets will make sneaking in even small and quiet SSKs into choke points and littorals very difficult. It is no wonder that those navies that can afford to are looking to increase SSN holding with an emphasis on long range sensing and firepower.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sauravjha/2976/65456/some-trends-in-sonar-technology.html

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11857
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Dec 2014 16:25



is this the 50th Pegasus engine overhauled, for a fleet of what 12-14 aircraft? We did not get the derby intergrated also with them right? Wonder how many years they can be flogged, will be nice to see a Sea harrier land and take off from Vik, LCA or Mig 29 cant land on Viraat- no arrestor cables
Last edited by Aditya_V on 29 Dec 2014 20:08, edited 1 time in total.

member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28911 » 29 Dec 2014 17:40

@Saurav Jha:
Today both Keltron and BEL can integrate ALTAS side by side.

User trials of ALTAS (developed by NPOL) to commence in 2015.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4564
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srai » 30 Dec 2014 05:34

maz wrote:Re unrealistic budget estimates (lowball figures), I wonder if it may be difficult for the Navy and MoD to obtain funding at the early if more realistic figures were used? But the IN has managed to obtain approvals for other projects like P-75I with ridiculously large estimates on the other hand. Or it may really be that there is a lack of sufficient institutional expertise. Which is unfortunate given that this happens to almost every project.

It is interesting to note that force levels are planned to be almost 200 ships and submarines. This is a very significant jump from the present force levels of 15 subs incl. Chakra and Arihant; around 123 (not 127) commissioned vessels incl 2 STS +1 INSV but excluding the numerous FIC & ISV operated by SPB; and 240+ aircraft.

I am counting 123 vessels since some have been lost/transferred/decommissioned in 2014.

Actually, Naval Aviation force levels are growing quite rapidly despite the wfu of Kirans, Islanders and some Chetak losses as growing numbers of MIGs, ALHs, P-8I, Hawks, Dorniers, UAS/UAVs, KMs, KAs enter service.

It remains to be seen what the breakdown of the 198 ship navy will be. We can take a guess from known programs.
Submarines: 24 and the balance 174 will be surface ships.

11-12 SSN/SSBN
18 SSK - this is 6P75. 6 P75I plus 6 more
3 or so SOV - why so few?

3 x CV
R11 (IAC 1) - enter svc 2019 tentatively
R33 (Vik)
R22 (IAC 2) - still a decade away

DDGs
3 P15
3 p15A
4 P15B
2-3 modernized SNF

FFGs
3 P16A
3 P17
6 Pr.11356
7 P17A
3 more Pr 11356 from Russia (possibly to replace 3x P16s)
4 P28 ASWC
possibly 8 more to replace P25/25A
4+5+7 NOPV
16 SWASWC - these will likely replace the 4 Pr.1241PE in service
16 other corvettes - most likely the replacement for the 12 Pr.1241RE small missile corvettes or for the P25/25A
4 more WJFAC plus 14 FAC in service
5 INFAC (Super Dvora) - most likely to be replaced by ISV/FIC

4 AOR (tankers)
5 FSS (tankers)
4 MPSV (110m, 3500ton)

4 survey ships to replace part of existing fleet of 8(7)
at least 4 other large survey ships
1 survey training ship
6 smaller survey vessels (cats)

8 MCMV but 24 req'd

3 CTS

4 LPD
8 LCU
5 LSTL
unknown numbers of LST / LSTM replacements but most likely 1:1 replacements - possibly 10 vessels

1 OSS
1 AGOR


Discussion points:

I wonder why the IN does not simply order 12 each of the P15B and P17A from various PSU and pvt yards instead of doing the piecemeal approach in from so many different sources. ? If these are designed to have modular combat systems (Stanflex, MEKO),then they can be easily upgraded going forward.

The same applies to smaller combatants and MCMV. Have a base hull that can be stretched as required. Hulls can be built of composites or steel as req'd. Same modular concept. Tailor the vessel to the mission.

for local defence/ harbor defence, large numbers of 23m composite hulled ISVs can easily be converted to cheap ASW platforms with commercial towed sonars and depth charges.
I also wonder why it isso difficult to build fully outfitted hull blocks? Could the shipyards not experiment with fully outfitted hull blocks on the small 50m WJFACs before rushing off to issue global RFI's seeking foreign partners?


Given the current time of around 7-10 years for the construction of new ships, the IN should be ordering at least 6 to 8 ships of a class at one go from one shipyard instead of its current practice of 3 or 4 ships. This way there would be less of a time gap between series--when the last of P-X series is inducted the new P-XA series will almost be ready. The other alternative is to split the orders up between multiple shipyards but order more quantities (12 units) at one time.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Dec 2014 11:35

But then the IN's budget has to be dramatically enhanced for larger orders to be placed at the onset. Unless it gets between 20-25% of the budget,the large-scale naval construction plans cannot be exercised.Years ago we were offered all 6 Talwars by the Russians for the same price -a cut-off date for the second lot was given,but our babus slept over it and we thus had too pay more for lot-2. Some reports say that a third lot is being negotiated.The itsy-bitsy untimely orders for spares,etc. for aircraft also puts OEM component manufacturers in a bind,affecting aircraft operational availability.The services being forced to return unspent money in a financial year is a real mystery .One fails to understand why it can't be carried forward and a deadline fixed for placing orders for approved requirements .A total clean-up of the MOD is required with a greater involvement of the services in security/strategic planning that results in swifter decision-making with the interests of the end-user first is a fundamental.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2374
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 30 Dec 2014 19:16

srai wrote:
Given the current time of around 7-10 years for the construction of new ships, the IN should be ordering at least 6 to 8 ships of a class at one go from one shipyard instead of its current practice of 3 or 4 ships. This way there would be less of a time gap between series--when the last of P-X series is inducted the new P-XA series will almost be ready. The other alternative is to split the orders up between multiple shipyards but order more quantities (12 units) at one time.


As Philip already mentioned, Can't really afford to purchase that many surface combatants each Shivalik for example costs' around 650 million ordering 6 is equivalent to 1 years budget. And hard to mitigate any risks from any problems that creep up, one of the reasons we could never write off Scorpene and switch to other alternatives. One option is do what Europeans are doing and do a joint program with multiple nations.

member_28730
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28730 » 30 Dec 2014 21:29

I agree on the cost of large naval assets. However a pack of 10 Shivaliks if orderd wil be delivered over a period of 8-10 years after the first one is delivered. The payment will be in installments linked to construction stages or milestones achieved. The cost of sustaning a large fleet in top condition involves costs so also the majr refits and upgrades program in the long run again these are lifetime costs which shoud be considered as such. I still do not like these small 3-packs, but guess they are done primarliy to have newer evolved models as the gestation period from conception to commisiisoning is almost 8 - 10 years and newer technilogy and changes can then absrobed and introduced in the designs.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 30 Dec 2014 23:18

Philip wrote:A total clean-up of the MOD is required with a greater involvement of the services in security/strategic planning that results in swifter decision-making with the interests of the end-user first is a fundamental.



That will be the day ! Arun Shourie agrees this and much more needs to be done (we have exchanged views). So does Gen VK Singh. The first has been sidelined completely and to a large extent the second too. Lets see what Mr Parrikar does (if he gets some time from Goa of course). My hopes are not too high. As an ex Cabinet Secy once said at a private dinner (I was present by accident)...we run the country not these jokers carrying AK 47s (did not even know what an INSAS or Ishapore was). It was in response to a discussion about Gen Kapil Vij being relieved of command. My uncle was a Secy level bureaucrat (never in MoD) and I can tell you they rule the roost. As a Vice Chief said to me in his office when he was Army Commander 'they have us in a vice like grip'. So forget about it Philip sir.

Also if India had any seriousness about national security defence spending would be at least 3 - 3.5 % of GDP.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1219
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby RKumar » 31 Dec 2014 00:43

Philip wrote:Some reports say that a third lot is being negotiated.


IMHO ... I don't see it concluding even if these are offered at the same price.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 31 Dec 2014 16:57

First Scorpene sub built in India ready, under test


In a significant development in the ongoing Scorpene submarine project at the Mazgaon Docks Limited (MDL), the first of the six French vessels has been completely constructed and is now undergoing tests within the yard. As per the time-frame set by the Indian Navy and the shipbuilder, the deliveries should begin by September 2015, with one vessel released to the Navy every subsequent year.

According to an official privy to the development, the vessel has finished all “outfitting” of the protruding masts, antennas and the periscope on the “conning tower” and is undergoing checks for checking their functionality. “The piping, wiring and cabling work inside the boat is also done. We will now test all these by simulating underwater conditions where gases and liquids will be pumped through the pipes to see how everything is performing. The team handling the testing bit is working in full swing on this submarine while another team concerned with the internal work is engaged in the wiring and piping works on the other boats,” said the officer. Officials from DCNS of France — the original maker of the Scorpene submarines are also assisting the shipbuilders at MDL.

The Scorpene project, also called Project 75, remains one of the most embarrassingly delayed defence projects ever since it was signed with the French in 2005. With several missed deadlines owing to unforeseen technology and “equipment-related” issues, according to MDL officials, the vessels would still be “insufficient” to meet India’s underwater capabilities by the time all of them reach the Indian Navy by 2020.

This is primarily because the first four of the boats would be without the crucial air independent propulsion (AIP), thus qualifying them as regular “diesel-electric” — a system which has been discontinued by most international navies.
An AIP allows a submarine to remain submerged for weeks on end without the need to surface to recharge its batteries or sending up a “snorkelling pipe” which could give away its position.


http://www.asianage.com/mumbai/first-sc ... r-test-131

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 Dec 2014 17:22

Good news about the first Scorpene. Reg. the extra Talwars,if there is no IN requirement,why are they discussing the same? It may be because P-51s,P-17s are taking too long to construct,are hugely expensive with cost-overruns,and our yards are full with orders including new OPVs /corvettes for export.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 31 Dec 2014 18:07

anand_sankar wrote:@Nik

Do your math before commenting.

If the fuel bill is $300 million per year, the carrier will have to burn 119 million liters of fuel oil per year. (Fuel oil is today around $300 per barrel. So you can buy 1 million barrels for $300 million. One barrel equals 119 litres)

:rotfl:


Not regularly keeping up and just saw your post - you did not complete your math which I did a while back. Here is my calc

Assume 65K carrier requires 6 LM2500 engines (going by 4 for 40K IAC)

Fuel consumption per hour in lb = 6 turbines * 0.354 SFC lb/shp-hr (from GE site) * 40,500 shp = 86K lb

Fuel consumption in litres per hr = 86K lb *('1/6.8') gallon/lb*3.78 litres/gallon = 48K litres / hr

Fuel consumption in a year = 48K liters *350 days *24 hrs = 400 million liters

Fuel cost assuming 1$ per liter jet fuel (from IBN) = 400 million $ per year

No carrier runs full blast throughout the year - and fuel prices will never be at lows seen today while carrier life is 30~40 years. Go nuts with scenarios and see my 300 million $ conclusion hold up.

Running cost of a decent carrier 'task force' is north of 1 billion $ per year easy ...

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_26622 » 31 Dec 2014 18:10

Philip wrote:Good news about the first Scorpene. Reg. the extra Talwars,if there is no IN requirement,why are they discussing the same? It may be because P-51s,P-17s are taking too long to construct,are hugely expensive with cost-overruns,and our yards are full with orders including new OPVs /corvettes for export.


most likely because our friends are in 'desperate' need

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8641
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Dec 2014 19:40

Indian companies form submarine consortium Janes, Full article and Analysis - Subscription

Three state-owned Indian companies have formed a consortium to meet the Indian Navy's requirement to procure six next-generation submarines, it was announced on 30 December.
Engineering group Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), metal producer Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (Midhani) and Hindustan Shipyards Limited (HSL) said they are bidding to be "considered as a prospective bidder" for the Project 75I (India) programme.
The three companies said in a statement that their joint bid - facilitated through a memorandum of understanding signed on 26 December - will "provide the country with a credible domestic alternative" to build submarines.
India is already building six DCNS Scorpene submarines under Project 75. These boats are being constructed by Mazagaon Dockyard Limited (MDL) but are severely delayed. MDL started building the boats in December 2006 but delivery of the first submarine has slipped by about four years to late 2016. Induction of the sixth and final submarine is expected in 2021-22, a delay of more than five years.




Analysis

Project 75I, which has a value of about USD10 billion, is long delayed. It was launched in 2007 and initially envisioned the procurement of two submarines from a foreign shipbuilder and four constructed under licence at HSL and MDL. Under initial plans, HSL would licence-build one submarine, with MDL the other three.
However, IHS Jane's reported in September that the IN is planning to procure all six submarines from local shipbuilders due to continuing delays; with design, development, and manufacturing assistance provided by a foreign partner. Overseas enterprises expected to be approached include France's DCNS, Germany's HDW, Spain's Navantia, and Russia's Rosoboronexport.
According to initial plans, the diesel-electric Project 75I submarines will be equipped with land-attack capability and air independent propulsion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Jan 2015 12:01

While one is sure that Russia welcomes orders,the stark fact is that our shipbuilding is way behind schedules and budgeted costs,both warships and subs.A couple of years ago we were told that the follow on P-17As would be built with foreign assistance,but nothing has happened.The cost-overruns have been in the news recently,putting enormous pressure upon the IN.The Parliamentary def. committee has recommended more funds for the IN too. In such a situ,getting a few more frigates which have been found very capable at a fixed price ,and at speed will offset the delays in the other projects being executed in our yards. Thus far the pvt. yards have been kept out of major warship/sub construction by the DPSUs for obvious reasons.They want to prepetuate their monopoly and the huge funds that appear limitless once the project is initially sanctioned,well knowing that the GOI will eventually find the funds somehow! Screw the taxpayer and celebrate is the motto of the DPSUs.There is absolutely no accountability. By the timne the warship/sub eventually arrives,the babu in charge would've long been transferred or retired to a life of comfort,or even a post-retirement cushy job at govt. expense!

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10025
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sum » 01 Jan 2015 14:08

Negi-ullah mentioned on another dhaaga that the mig 29ks are grounded and thier radars have never worked since induction.!!!

Whats the readon for this?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11857
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Jan 2015 14:16

First Sindhukirti and now scorpene and Arihant, so suddenly IN sub fleet can be ahead of 3 within a year, and once the scorpenes comes on stream situation could be much better by 2017-18 than what it is today

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Raman » 01 Jan 2015 21:17

nik wrote:Not regularly keeping up and just saw your post - you did not complete your math which I did a while back. Here is my calc

Assume 65K carrier requires 6 LM2500 engines (going by 4 for 40K IAC)

Fuel consumption per hour in lb = 6 turbines * 0.354 SFC lb/shp-hr (from GE site) * 40,500 shp = 86K lb

Fuel consumption in litres per hr = 86K lb *('1/6.8') gallon/lb*3.78 litres/gallon = 48K litres / hr

Fuel consumption in a year = 48K liters *350 days *24 hrs = 400 million liters

Fuel cost assuming 1$ per liter jet fuel (from IBN) = 400 million $ per year

No carrier runs full blast throughout the year - and fuel prices will never be at lows seen today while carrier life is 30~40 years. Go nuts with scenarios and see my 300 million $ conclusion hold up.

Running cost of a decent carrier 'task force' is north of 1 billion $ per year easy ...


The assumptions behind this calculation are very questionable.
1) Vikrant uses COGAG, so unless she is sprinting (or during launch and recovery), she will be using 2 engines not 4.
2) You'd be extremely lucky to operate the carrier for even 7 months of every year. You have to include training, work-up, maintenance, etc.
My guess is that your estimates are off by a factor of 2x to 2.5x

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2015 10:22

Why couldn't we have built warships for our neighbours like BDesh? One was told that by the time we realized it ,after they first approached us,the Chinese stepped in.talk about babudom and opportunities lost.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 1231000139
China launches frigate for Bangladesh navy
Xinhua 2014-12-31 17:22 (GMT+8)
A new type of frigate built for the Bangladesh Navy was launched in the riverside city of Wuhan in central China's Hubei province on Tuesday.

The frigate, with a displacement of 1,300 tons and maximum speed of 25 knots, is 90 meters long and 11 meters across the beam. It can accommodate 80 crew members.

It will be the most advanced frigate in the Bangladesh Navy, which will be a boost to its coastal defense capability and the China-Bangladesh friendship, said Rear Admiral Syed Abu Mansur Arshadul Abedin, the assistant chief of Naval Staff at the launching ceremony.

The frigate can detect, identify and destroy surface and aerial targets and can also carry out maritime monitoring and patrols, and search and rescue missions, said Cai Libin, deputy general manager of the Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group, the builder of the frigate.

It is equipped with 76 mm and 30 mm naval guns as well as ship-to-ship and ship-to-air missiles.
Bangladesh has bought two frigates from China. The first was launched in November.


PS:With HSL in trouble,will the MOD entrust it with the conventional 75-I programme or will it choose a pvt. yard? HSL can if languishing for sub orders start building a parallel line of SSNs apart from the SSBNs under construction. This would make more sense esp. as the N-sub tech is being assisted in significant manner by Russia,with much in common expected for both types.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Vis ... 742302.ece
Updated: December 31, 2014 20:30 IST
Will HSL bag submarine project?
Faced with a precarious financial position, HSL, which was brought under MoD in February 2010, has been struggling for existence with delay in getting major orders for construction from the Navy despite its proven ability in shipbuilding and submarine retrofitting.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pushkar.bhat » 02 Jan 2015 15:24

News just in. A Pakistani trawler intercepted at high seas 36 KM from Porbunder blew itself up. Link to the news Item on ToIlet Paper Website

member_27164
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_27164 » 02 Jan 2015 15:56

Well done coast guards!!!

member_28840
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28840 » 02 Jan 2015 16:01

Good Job ICG. We are very lucky they didn't wait for the coast guard ship to get close and try a USS Cole on us.

member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28911 » 02 Jan 2015 16:03

Image
@TimesNow: shots of suspected Pak. terror vessel intercepted by Indian Coast Guard, after explosion.

Jai Hind

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2015 16:11

NDTV broke it first,but it seems to be another "New Year's gift" from the TSP. In the run-up to O'Bomber's visit,the TSP is pulling out all stops to create mayhem in India and put the visit in jeopardy or steal the thunder from the content of the visit.Great show by the CG.At last our maritime security efforts are starting to pay off.The earlier report about the In wanting to takeover the Porbandar airport,and establishment of a naval base there, as a naval air station assumes greater urgency after this.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests