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.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 875
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Mihir » 13 Jul 2014 07:30

Umm, shouldn't the number of SAMs on the Kolkata be seen in the context of the overall weapons fit? It was always meant to be a "general purpose" destroyer rather than a one-trick pony. I bet none of the foreign vessels being mentioned here are capable of providing the kind of offensive punch that the Kolkata can. Sixteen supersonic cruise missiles with a range of 300 km (or more) is incredible firepower.

In any case, the ship isn't very likely to act alone if war breaks out. A fleet comprising with a handful of Kolkatas and Shivaliks should do rather nicely for air defence.
Last edited by Mihir on 13 Jul 2014 08:34, edited 1 time in total.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 13 Jul 2014 08:05

These Sukanya class OPVs, can they mount the Pinaka MBRL (not the whole truck) on the Dhanush stabilization system? and still be accurate, would be very useful for shore bombardment, given the context of engaging the likes of ISIS

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Jul 2014 12:35

It is with a sigh of relief that the two warships Kol and Kam,have been completed and will soon be commissioned.While the contours of te Kol are more well known,being a follow on improvement of the Delhi DDGs,primarily featuring BMos in a huge 16 cell package,+ a new SAM to eventually improve its air and missile defence capability,the Kamorta class of light FFGs,and they should really be classified as such as they are larger and pack a far heavier package than the Leanders, represent a much needed dedicated ASW capability for the fleet. Since ASW warfare is the most heavily guarded secret in naval warfare,we will not be able to evaluate the vessel not having access to its sonar capabilities/parameters,stealth signature,etc. Once the Kam class of warships are also complemented by the shallow vessel ASW corvettes,and the 100+ new ASW helos required across the board for the fleet to replace old Sea Kings and Kamovs,the IN's ASW warfare ability will possess considerable punch and not too soon either to meet the huge Chinese sub fleet which will number around 75 by 2020,with increased forays into the IOR especially close to the Indian coastline and approaches to our major naval bases and ports.With the IN now possessing two carriers,with the first IAC,the new Vikrant also expected to enter service before the end of the decade,he two carrier groups will require very capable ASW escorts in the form off the Kamortas and Shivaliks in particular.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1625
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 13 Jul 2014 13:17

I am a little confused about the SAM status on Kolkatta. Does it have 32 Barak 8s or are the silos empty. AFAIK Barak 8 is not ready in India.

rsharma
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Location: Hidden Markov Model

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby rsharma » 13 Jul 2014 16:35

Is it just me or did some one else also report a missing EL/M-2238, on the K- class ? :shock:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Jul 2014 19:06

Ins kuthar damaged entering a harbour in the andamans.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19761
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chetak » 13 Jul 2014 19:30

Singha wrote:Ins kuthar damaged entering a harbour in the andamans.



Warship damaged in mishap, Navy orders probe

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 13 Jul 2014 20:44

vasu raya wrote:These Sukanya class OPVs, can they mount the Pinaka MBRL (not the whole truck) on the Dhanush stabilization system? and still be accurate, would be very useful for shore bombardment, given the context of engaging the likes of ISIS

They can be mounted on that manner, we do have WM 18A rocket launchers for beach clearing operation's on LST and even RBU 6000 can be used for shore bombardment.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 13 Jul 2014 21:10

Around six ships of modern design of the Kolkata and Kamorta are getting inducted. The IN can go and decommission some of the old ships.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 13 Jul 2014 21:24

John wrote: ...
They can be mounted on that manner, we do have WM 18A rocket launchers for beach clearing operation's on LST and even RBU 6000 can be used for shore bombardment.


Good to know about the WM 18A, not sure about its range, but pinning hopes on Pinaka Mk3 which has a planned range of 100-120km and includes guidance.

and maybe also sell them to Vietnam, with a new warhead that disables propellers, of say fishing trawlers. The Pinaka Mk3 due to guidance package, might also get mid course updates sufficient to land really close to slow moving targets. With no air defence or CIWS from the trawlers, the rocket in its terminal phase can be throttled to be as slow as a glide bomb to make it more accurate. Let me know if I have drawn a chuckle.

And then there is a backlog of 20 Pinaka regiments for the IA already, if L&T is building WS-18A, it would be logical to ask them to participate in producing Pinaka.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 13 Jul 2014 22:34

We have inducted a desi "stealth" design in almost all categories of surface ships:
Destroyers: P-15A
Frigates: P-17
Corvettes: P-28
OPV: Saryu class

An interesting trend we are seeing is that rationalization of armaments across these newer IN desi stealth warships, specially for ASW:

Sensors:
Hull/Bow Mounted Sonars: HUMSA/HUMSA-NG locally manufactured
Towed Array Sonar: Nagin failed trials apparently, so we have an Atlas Elektronik ATAS coming in for all ships

Weapons:
Torpedo Tubes: 2 twin Heavyweight Tubes locally manufactured
Depth Charge Rockets: 2x RBU-6000 locally manufactured
Main Gun: 76mm in a stealth cupola locally manufactured
CIWS: 30mm AK-630 locally manufactured

Aircraft:
Hanger for AT LEAST 1 large ASW helicopter...looks like the SeaKings and Ka-28 are approaching the end of their service lives, so 100+ NMRH will be inducted that can serve cross platform (incl. carriers). I wonder if HAL will at least get to screwdriver assemble & service these.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 08:11

the helicopters will be outright buys like the Mi17v, but there will be base repair depot here for sure, looking at the large number.
it will financially be a huge deal.

I hope the local light torpedo can be used instead of a imported one.

looking at importance of ASW in IN, we should look to make a complete local pkg of depth charges, light torpedo, sonobuoys, helicopter radar and ESM, mission avionics for the ASW workstation, dunking sonar, MAD, optronic pod.

that way we can buy imported platforms like NH90 or SH60 as a bare bones instead of paying the gold price for all the above. the cost of the above and their support packages will be 50% of the on road cost of the deal.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vishnu » 14 Jul 2014 10:22

There have been some suggestions that the P-15A will carry 32 Barak 8s in ready to fire mode and 32 more stored in cannisters. Not sure this makes sense to me since fitting 4x16 cell launchers would be more practical - but this is what I am hearing ... can't say this is confirmed information

Vishnu

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 10:56

there is no way a VLS SAM system can be reloaded at sea. nobody does it.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jul 2014 11:13

Vishnu is referring to a FB discussion between us.

Barak-1 canisters are replaceable. Harry B wrote on BR page

Unlike other vessels, INS Viraat carries additional Barak rounds for reloads during operational deployment.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 11:16

you said it - 'unlike other vessels' - the barak1 on viraat are conveniently located on the main deck surface and they have onboard cranes and forklifts to move things around. even the CVNs have the ESSM boxes on sponsons along the sides and are probably not reloaded at sea.

if we see a fixed folded crane on the P15A right behind the VLS and a large trapdoor leading to a reload room below, then it would be a plausible theory.

the decoy launchers on the vikramaditya are reloaded manually from below decks, there was a film posted on it. much smaller than a SAM though.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jul 2014 11:24

That article was written by B Harry ages back - 2005. Now he is unfortunately no more. He is referring to state of affairs 9 years back.

Another website writes WRT to P-15A: there are another 32 cannister-encased missiles for reload. Cannister-encased vertically-launched missiles held internally in storage can easily be brought to ready-to-fire position once the empty cannisters are removed while at-sea.

Wiki Kolkata class page shows: Anti-air missiles: 4× 8-cell VLS, for 32 Barak 8 missiles Range: 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to 70 km (43 mi)[7] 32 more carried onboard as reload (64 total)

any yes, it requires a crane.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Jul 2014 11:44

Media reports.GOI fast tracking the sub crisis decisions.The P-75I RFP will be expedited as well as plan for building 6 nuclear boats.Whether these are 6 SSGNs apart from the plan for 5/6 SSBNs,or partly including some of that number isn't clear.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23361
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Jul 2014 12:39

Indian warships arrive in Vladivostok for INDRA-2014 naval drills

A group of Indian warships have arrived in Russia’s Pacific port of Vladivostok to participate in the planned INDRA-2014 joint naval exercises.

The Ranvijai destroyer, the Shivalik frigate and the Shakti supply were given a cordial welcome in traditional Russian bread-and-salt style.

The commander of the Indian naval taskforce briefed reporters on the aims of the visit and the upcoming war games.

The guests will meet with Pacific Fleet commanders and Vladivostok officials and lay wreaths at a monument to the glorious history of the Russian Pacific Fleet.

Russian and Indian sailors will demonstrate their skills in rowing, yachting, volleyball and football.

The active phase of the INDRA-2014 will take place on July 17-19. The ships will rehearse tactical maneuvering, defense in an unsafe roadstead, helicopter exchange, ship rescue, re-supply efforts at sea as well as joint anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile defense.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 13:10

http://navy-matters.blogspot.in/2013/09 ... etter.html

Navy Matters
Naval analysis provided by ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions

Friday, September 6, 2013

VLS - Are More Better?

When people describe ships that they’d like to see designed, one of the most common characteristics is more VLS cells. Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? More cells means more offensive or defensive power, right?

Well, there’s a few things wrong with that concept.

For starters, there’s the matter of inventory. Our current fleet has around 9000 VLS cells. What’s our inventory of Standards and Tomahawks that could, potentially, fill those cells? No one knows, or, at least, I don’t.

However, going back over purchase announcements for the last several years suggests that our inventory of Tomahawks is around 3000 or so. If the Standard inventory is similar, that would suggest around 6000 missiles to fill 9000 cells. Hmm … We would seem to be a bit short on missiles compared to cells.

If true, that suggests that the desire to put more cells in ships may not be a worthwhile design goal. Now, I readily admit that I don’t have definitive numbers for the missile inventory but I have done my homework on what’s available in the public domain. I don’t think I’m too far off one way or the other. I’m making some allowance for usage, both combat (we seem to periodically shoot off a hundred or so missiles in various conflicts) and training, as well as shelf life limits and electronic diagnostic failures.

Of course, there’s no requirement to be able to fill every VLS cell at the same time. Even in a war a certain percentage of ships would not be deployed at any given moment. That said, the difference between an inventory of 6000 and a capacity of 9000 is well beyond the vagaries of deployment schedules.


VLS - More or Less?

The example of Harpoon missiles is instructive. While we technically have an inventory of thousands of Harpoons, relatively few of them are serviceable. They’ve all exceeded their official shelf lives and are being rotated into storage as they fail their diagnostic checks. We have very few usable Harpoons left. I don’t know the situation as it applies to Tomahawks but I suspect that shelf life is a serious issue.

Another problem with larger numbers of VLS cells is the impact of combat loss of a ship. Historically, most (all?) ships that are sunk do so with the majority of their magazines unexpended. Thus, the more loaded cells there are on a ship, the more unexpended missiles we’ll lose when a ship is sunk. This goes directly back to the inventory issue. To take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, if a ship with 1000 loaded VLS cells is sunk, we’d probably lose 95% of the missiles still unfired. That’s quite an inventory loss for little gain. On a related note, this is one of the problems with the old Arsenal Ship concept. It’s a lot of eggs in one basket.

The only time we’d really need large numbers of VLS cells on a single ship is for high volume Tomahawk land attacks or, to an extent, saturation or long duration AAW scenarios. Even the saturation AAW scenario probably doesn’t justify too large a number of cells. Remember, only a relatively few missiles can be in the air at any given time. Thus, having a hundred or two hundred cells worth of Standards won’t get more than a small portion of them into the fight before the attack is over – incoming high subsonic or supersonic missiles don’t allow for a very long engagement window. Land attack would benefit from larger numbers of VLS cells (the Arsenal Ship concept), however, it also suffers from the “all your eggs in one basket” risk.

Most people seem to think that the more VLS cells a ship has, the better its ability to conduct AAW and defeat incoming missile attacks. The reality is that a single ship with a million VLS cells is no better than a single ship with six VLS cells in a single missile engagement. This is due to the illuminator limitation issue (you can only guide a few missiles at a time even with terminal-only guidance) combined with the very short engagement window for a modern anti-ship missile.


The only benefit that additional VLS cells offers in an AAW engagement is that the ship can conduct AAW for a longer period of time. Again, though, remember that even a saturation attack won’t last very long.

These issues suggest that there is an optimum balance of number of cells versus risk. I don’t have the actual performance data to be able to state what the optimum number of cells should be but I suspect that around 100 cells is about right – basically a Burke. Much more than that and you run the risk of losing too much inventory for too little gain.

The exception, or modification, to the risk issue is the SSGN. Due to the inherent stealth of the SSGN it can carry more cells for the same relative amount of risk. Indeed, the 150 or so cells the SSGN carries represents a potent offensive strike while minimizing the risk.

Now, if the Navy ever develops a new anti-ship missile that is VLS capable that will change the equation. Additional cells will be needed to field a credible surface strike. That may change the ideal number of cells but it won’t change the concept that there is an optimum balance point.

All that’s fine but what if we want to accept the risk? What’s the problem with having more cells? Well, the answer is cost. VLS isn’t free. Aside from the obvious cost of the VLS module itself, each module consumes precious ship’s internal volume and deck space, which translates to larger ships and bigger engines to move the ship. That in turn requires more fuel, the storage of which requires a larger ship. In addition, the VLS modules use the ship’s utilities (power, water, etc.).

We see, then, that VLS cells should be added only if absolutely required to meet the ship’s mission.
Posted by ComNavOps at 10:01 AM

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 13:12

good thing about P15A design is its big. if threat perception changes in next 5-10 yrs, i feel the barak8 can get its own silos currently where the barak1's are placed.
this is simply not possible in delhi,talwar or p17 class due to lack of space.
if we remove their Shtil systems I kind of doubt we could even put a 24 unit barak8.

the p17A I am not sure, but since its going to be smaller hull again limitation might be there to 32cells in foredeck only.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jul 2014 13:45

Singha wrote:http://navy-matters.blogspot.in/2013/09/vls-are-more-better.html

We see, then, that VLS cells should be added only if absolutely required to meet the ship’s mission.
Posted by ComNavOps at 10:01 AM


Vishnu suggests that since P-15A has real estate on the deck, we should be adding more VLS cells. However, one should understand that its not what we see over the deck, but its the internal ship volume which gets affected.

Secondly, I am trying to understand how 32 cells will be employed in a single situation. I cannot see a squadron of manned incomings on a suicide mission or 32 unmanned incomings against a ship.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 14:05

my night mare scenario is TSPAF staging two attacks with a buffer in between.
the 1st attack with a bunch of subsonic harpoons to expend the indian anti-missile inventory and score a few hits if they can.
the 2nd attack with a half-squadron of elite bandar's with a chinese made supersonic missile.

both could be cued by some high flying a/c like EMB145 from a distance and provided the necessary set on inertial nav points before launch.

thats where the KDX3 type XL loadout proves its worth - firing SAMs like people fire AK47s :-?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jul 2014 14:12

I wonder where will TSPAF will find Kolkata positioned for such luxuries.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 14:16

earlier they might have been gated by limited number of exocets and harpoons.
the chinese air launched ASMs are the game changer. even a couple flights of IL76 from china can deliver dozens of such missiles permitting more lavish usage even in spray and pray mode on distant contacts or small targets like FACs even.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 14 Jul 2014 14:20

I hardly see then spending so much for bagging a Destroyer. 32 cells with AK-630 can shred atleast 1.5 squadron of incomings in case TSPAF finds it in an unfavorable position.

I can see 64 missile compliment only if it heads to South China sea.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23361
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Jul 2014 16:11

Pictures of Indian ships at Vladivostok for Indra 2014

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740399

BTW what is the radar above the helicopter hanger on Shivalik

http://videocdn.itar-tass.com/fit/816x4 ... 050892.jpg

Is this the one for Barak-1 or something else never seen that before.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 18:00

apparently a crazy brilliant american designer back in 60s got an idea from a article written around 1900 on how to transfer bags of coal between ships and came up with a complex and automated harness system that was proven to transfer 24 SAMs per hour at night in sea state 6 (4-6m waves) !! this is compared to the 4 / hour in current procedure. it was a hands off system that took the missiles down to some magazine - those days there was no vls.
but it was complex and prone to failure and the arrival of VLS meant the could install a lot of cells and work around the limited reload issue.

in the earlier mk41 vls it seems 3 cells of 32 cell block was dedicated to a foldout crane to help loading missiles perhaps from austere reload piers, but this was later deleted in favour of dockside crane support.

khan chacha sure has a century long history in naval innovation.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 14 Jul 2014 20:37

Singha wrote:my night mare scenario is TSPAF staging two attacks with a buffer in between.
the 1st attack with a bunch of subsonic harpoons to expend the indian anti-missile inventory and score a few hits if they can.
the 2nd attack with a half-squadron of elite bandar's with a chinese made supersonic missile.

both could be cued by some high flying a/c like EMB145 from a distance and provided the necessary set on inertial nav points before launch.

thats where the KDX3 type XL loadout proves its worth - firing SAMs like people fire AK47s :-?


Singha-ji, we can still bring overwhelming firepower to bear on to Pakistan in the case of a single front war. Even with regular IL-76 replenishment flights for AShMs and Chinese space assets support, within a decade we will be able to deploy 2 carriers and 90+ naval fighters (even if they operate from shore bases), let alone what the IAF can cobble together.

The size of the bundars makes it hard to carry a large AShM + decent A2A loadout. Even elite bundar squadrons will be hard pressed to strike the fleet in meaningful numbers.

I think the IN has decided it is not going to take the fight to China's waters (except SSNs). It is going to operate in the Indian "Lakes" where shore based air power will be decisive. The PAF/PN and the PLAN even with its new SSNs and Carriers will be hard pressed to operate in these areas.

For all the talk about India's depleting SSK fleet and bunders, we have a very potent sea denial AS WELL AS sea control capability in the IoR

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 14 Jul 2014 20:40

Austin wrote:BTW what is the radar above the helicopter hanger on Shivalik

http://videocdn.itar-tass.com/fit/816x4 ... 050892.jpg

Is this the one for Barak-1 or something else never seen that before.

That radar is EL/M-2238.

As for Kolkata's loadout keep in mind the vessel cost is 3900 crore which is actually around or less than the cost of Shivalik (adj for inflation). Far cry from billion plus price figures for other DDGs these days.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4198
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srai » 14 Jul 2014 20:48

chackojoseph wrote:
Singha wrote:http://navy-matters.blogspot.in/2013/09/vls-are-more-better.html

We see, then, that VLS cells should be added only if absolutely required to meet the ship’s mission.
Posted by ComNavOps at 10:01 AM


...
Secondly, I am trying to understand how 32 cells will be employed in a single situation. I cannot see a squadron of manned incomings on a suicide mission or 32 unmanned incomings against a ship.


The only navy that can attack another naval group in force and long way from land would be the US Navy carrier battle groups. In one attack scenario described in a book I read long while ago had 4 x F-18s each armed with 4 x Harpoons (16 total) plus couple of LGBs (8 total) attack a small Indian Navy's Delhi DDG task force. So it is possible to swarm without too many attack planes but the catch is those planes need to have reach (or at least brought to within range), payload capacity and sufficient fighter escorts as well as other force multipliers in support.

Even though typical SAM tactic is to use two missiles per target except in the case of swarm attack, a ship is almost always operating within a group/squadron. One has to think in those terms when counting SAM capacity rather than at individual level.

In the Indian Navy's context, the attacks it will face would probably be similar to those faced by the RN during Falklands War. Few intense encounters followed by long periods of calm.
Royal Navy Memories - My Falklands Diary
Falklands 30 – Bomb Alley
Last edited by srai on 15 Jul 2014 07:19, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jul 2014 21:15

I think that explains the big size and endurance with balanced arms and with not the obesity in Sam headcount.

its a smaller version of the type45

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1074
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 14 Jul 2014 22:17

John wrote:As for Kolkata's loadout keep in mind the vessel cost is 3900 crore which is actually around or less than the cost of Shivalik (adj for inflation). Far cry from billion plus price figures for other DDGs these days.


Not sure if this is true. MoD stated in the Parliament in 2011 that the cost escalation has been 225+ % for the P-15A project. The Rs 11,662 crore figure for 3 ships was given by Ajai Shukla in 2009, so we may be paying like Rs 9,700 crore per ship. That's like 50% of Navy's capital budget this year!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Jul 2014 22:43

Indian warships in Russia for naval wargames Updated: Monday, July 14, 2014,
Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/india/indian-wa ... e-scroll-1

New Delhi, Jul 14:Three Indian Navy warships today entered Vladivostok in Russia for the INDRA series of naval wargames with that country. After the exercises with the Russian navy, the warships will proceed to the Pacific Ocean where they will hold the multilateral 'Malabar' series exercises with the US and Japanese Navy there. "After travelling over 5,000 nautical miles, three Indian Navy warships, including the Rajput-class destroyer INS Ranvijay, stealth frigate INS Shivalik and fleet tanker INS Shakti, today entered the Russian port of Vladivostok," a Navy spokesperson said. India and Russia hold the INDRA series of exercises between their navies and armies where they practice counter-terrorism manouveres and further improve their inter-operability. For the multinational Malabar series wargames, India had invited Japan to participate in this year's edition of the wargames during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to New Delhi in January. India had decided against making the Malabar series exercises multilateral after China opposed the presence of Japan, Singapore and Australia in the naval war games in the 2007 edition held close to the Japanese waters. India and the US have held over 60 exercises between their armed forces. PTI

Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/india/indian-wa ... e-scroll-1


Details of Russia's new Kilo variant launched.A couple of new boats could make up for the two lost by the IN to catastrophe and incompetence.
Russian navy launches new electric submarine Updated: Friday, June 27, 2014,
Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/international/r ... 72965.html
Moscow, June 27: The Russian navy launched a new diesel-electric submarine, a latest addition to its Black Sea Fleet, media reported Friday. The submarine was launched Thursday in a ceremony held in St. Petersburg, Xinhua reported. A navy official said that the new diesel-electric submarine Rostov-na-Donu, along with other vessels in the ongoing Project 636 series, represented modernisation of existing Russian submarine technology. "The outside remains the same, but inside is completely different: a new torpedo defence system, new acoustic technology and new radio-electric equipment," the official said. Rostov-na-Donu will join its Project 636 sub Novorossiysk for Black Sea duties which will include working together with surface forces and anti-submarine aircraft. As well as covering the Black Sea, the new sub is also set to assist Russian naval activities in the neighbouring Mediterranean Sea. Over the next few years, a total of six diesel-electric submarines would join the Black Sea Fleet under Project 636. The vessels are designed to combine a high level of stealth with the ability to detect and attack enemy craft from a long range. Project 636 is part of a broader development strategy for Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu promised an investment of more than 86 billion rubles (about $2. 55 billion) in the Black Sea Fleet by the year 2020. IANS

Read more at: http://news.oneindia.in/international/r ... 72965.html

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7537
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 14 Jul 2014 22:46

I don't remember seeing this here. Granted it is by Rajat Pandit.

Move to fast-track two submarine projects gathers steam

There is finally some urgency being shown to rescue India's ageing and depleting underwater combat arm. The approval for two long-pending projects, one for construction of six advanced diesel-electric submarines and the other for six nuclear-powered ones, is well on the cards now.

Sources said the finance ministry has asked the defence ministry to "club" the separate projects to "draft a single note" for the requisite nod from Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). "The two projects have "The two projects have been languishing for long in the files being exchanged between the two ministries. The government seems serious about fast-track approvals this time," said a source.

The approvals, when they come, will not be a day too soon since India is down to just 13 old diesel-electric submarines, barely half of which are operational at any given time, and a single nuclear-propelled submarine INS Chakra on lease from Russia without any long-range missiles.

It takes at least seven to eight years for the first submarine to roll out once its construction project actually gets underway. The two projects will together entail a cost of well over Rs 1 lakh crore spread over 10-15 years.

'Project-75India' for the six conventional submarines, armed with both land-attack missiles and air-independent propulsion (AIP) for greater underwater endurance, was granted "acceptance of necessity'' in November 2007, as was reported earlier by TOI.

But the global tender to select the foreign collaborator for it is yet to be even issued. As per the existing plan, the first two submarines will be imported to save time, while three will be constructed at Mazagon Docks (Mumbai), and the sixth at Hindustan Shipyard (Visakhapatnam).

The project to build the six SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines, usually without nuclear-tipped missiles), in turn, is to be undertaken at the secretive ship-building centre (SBC) at Vizag. India's first three SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles) are already being built at the SBC to complete the country's nuclear weapons triad - the capability to fire nukes from land, air and underwater. The expertise gained in the construction of the SSBNs will help the SSN project, said sources.

The first SSBN, the 6,000-tonne INS Arihant, is slated to go for extensive sea trials soon after its miniature 83 mw pressurized light-water reactor, which went "critical" in August last year, attains "full power" in another month or so. The second, INS Aridhaman, is also to be "launched into water" soon with its hull and basic structure ready. China, incidentally, has five nuclear and 51 conventional submarines. It is poised to induct up to five JIN-class SSBNs, with their new 7,400-km range JL-2 missiles, over the next few years.

India, however, has miserably failed in this arena. It was in 1999 that the had approved a 30-year submarine-building plan, which envisaged induction of 12 new submarines by 2012, followed by another dozen by 2030.

But 15 years later, not a single new submarine has been inducted because of politico-bureaucratic apathy. The first programme, Project-75, was finalized only in 2005 to build six French Scorpene submarines at MDL. It's already running over four years behind schedule, with the first Scorpene now slated for delivery by November 2016 and the other five rolling out thereafter every 8-10 months. Moreover, the Rs 1,800 crore contract to buy 98 heavy-weight torpedoes to arm the submarines is also yet to be inked.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 14 Jul 2014 23:55

Nikhil T wrote:
John wrote:As for Kolkata's loadout keep in mind the vessel cost is 3900 crore which is actually around or less than the cost of Shivalik (adj for inflation). Far cry from billion plus price figures for other DDGs these days.


Not sure if this is true. MoD stated in the Parliament in 2011 that the cost escalation has been 225+ % for the P-15A project. The Rs 11,662 crore figure for 3 ships was given by Ajai Shukla in 2009, so we may be paying like Rs 9,700 crore per ship. That's like 50% of Navy's capital budget this year!

That report was misread it was quoting the original allocated figures of something like 4000 crores for 3 vessel so after escalation it was 11600 crore. Ajay re quoted that in his last article on P-15A as well. P-15A should cost less than Shivalik adj for inflation.

This is from may 2014:

"Project 15A will eventually cost the navy Rs 11,662 crore. At Rs 3,900 crore per destroyer, that is barely one-third what the UK’s Royal Navy has paid for its new Type-45 Daring-class destroyers --- Rs 11,000 crore per vessel."

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 15 Jul 2014 06:49

srai wrote:Even though typical SAM tactic is to use two missiles per target


This probably will change with newer generation missiles like Barak-8. Second launch will be optional.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 15 Jul 2014 08:11

Dilly dallying on purchases by going back and forth will not help.The best option seems
1) Place order for three follow on Scorpene with MDL immediately.
2) Stick with commonality in the follow on P75I by choosing improved Scorpene design with capabilty to fire Brahmos-M missiles, indigenous AIP and many components being developed indegenously for the current Scorpene project.
3) Start planning for the Indigenous submarine project based on the experience gained from Arihant and Scorpene and run the project almost parallel to P75I. Let there be lot of commonality in both subs. The order must be in a dozen subs ordered in one go.
4) Order for six nuclear attack subs is a very welcome move.
This will stabilize the submarine forces by around 2025.

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kuldipchager » 15 Jul 2014 09:28

uddu

Post subject: Re: Indian Naval Discussion

PostPosted: 15 Jul 2014 08:11



Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09
Posts: 1015

Dilly dallying on purchases by going back and forth will not help.The best option seems
1) Place order for three follow on Scorpene with MDL immediately.
2) Stick with commonality in the follow on P75I by choosing improved Scorpene design with capabilty to fire Brahmos-M missiles, indigenous AIP and many components being developed indegenously for the current Scorpene project.
3) Start planning for the Indigenous submarine project based on the experience gained from Arihant and Scorpene and run the project almost parallel to P75I. Let there be lot of commonality in both subs. The order must be in a dozen subs ordered in one go.
4) Order for six nuclear attack subs is a very welcome move.
This will stabilize the submarine forces by around 2025.


Bramos missile can,nt be fit into the Scorpene design sub.If we wants bramos then we have to go with Russian sub 636 or larger 1650 modal.
We could design our own smaller modal of Arihant with bramos missile.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Jul 2014 10:09

the max diameter of the scorpene is 18-19ft outer hull. that is not enough to fit the brahmos + its hatch + gas generator eject system. so simply adding a plug to scorpene as some claim, is not going to work unless we add a hump section of around 1m height which will affect the hydrodynamics, weight and put a brake on the already low submerged speed vs SSNs.

exactly same problem for the nirbhay missile in terms of length.

but one solution could be a enlarged front section torpedo room that fires the nirbhay using a air capsule tomahawk style.

but the submerged launch of nirbhay was VLS, and none have talked of torpedo tube for brahmos because its >21" dia.

so all these ideas are moot unless we commit to a new clean design with 6.5m dia or get hold of the U216 or Soryu with adaptations as the P75I. its probably best we run with the Soryu, because the japanese are not known to be working on defence projects covertly with the chinese to make money - unlike other dear friends like russia, france and germany.

a Soryu with 8 VL brahmos/nirbhay + 25 heavy torps would be a useful machine in the IOR.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests