Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Apr 2015 15:04

the agosta90b has a inferior and more minimal sonar suite albeit it shares the same SUBTICS thales combat consoles.

Sensor suite

The submarine is fitted with a Thales Underwater Systems (formerly Thomson Marconi Sonar) TSM 223 sonar suite, which includes bow-mounted sonar and towed sonar arrays, SAGEM periscopes and navigation system and Thales I-band navigation radar.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Apr 2015 15:06

looking at the sheer compactness of these puppies yet so much kit onboard, Tsarkar sir was right, the SSK is more complex gear than a capacious SSN and hence the iphone of naval kit in terms of precision, tfta spit n polish and packing density needed.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Apr 2015 18:18

There are many commonalities in eqpt. between N-subs and conventional subs in terms of combat suites,eqpt.,etc. The larger size of an N-sub gives it greater all round performance ,speed,diving depth,extra weaponry,sensors, especially and better space for the crew voyages being upto 3 months u/w.Here is an xcpt/assessment by the US's most experienced analysts,Norman Polmar on the tech dimension between US and Russian subs.Though this is an old piece,it has many interesting points.

http://fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970318n.htm
Statement by
Norman Polmar

Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for this opportunity to share my views of the U.S. Navy submarine program with you.

Perspective

As an introduction, let me reiterate a fact that is well known to this committee: U.S. naval forces--Navy and Marine Corps--will have an increasing role in the post-Cold War era because of our withdrawal of ground and air forces from overseas bases while the number of international crises are increasing.

In this context, U.S. naval forces--which are undergoing major reductions in numbers--must have qualitative advantage over all potential adversaries. This is particularly true in the submarine arena, for our submarines generally go in "harms way" early in a crisis, and in conflicts are often operating alone in the enemy's "back yard."

I continue to be very concerned about the direction that we are taking in attack submarines. This concern is obviously shared by many of you and your colleagues here in the House, as well as by members of the Senate, officials of the Defense Department, by persons in the naval research and analysis field, and by many of the officers in the submarine force with whom I have spoken.

For the vast amount of money that we have invested and continue to invest in submarines, the United States should be the unquestioned world leader in submarine technology. But we are not. Last month, in a public relations booklet, the Director of Naval Intelligence wrote that the Russian submarine force, despite its reduced numbers and manning problems, "...still remains the technological pacing challenge by which the U.S submarine force measures itself...." [Emphasis in original]

Is there another area of naval warfare in which Russia--or any other nation--is the "technological pacing challenge"? Certainly not in naval aircraft, or aircraft carriers, or surface combatants, or mine countermeasures, or amphibious warfare. Indeed, is there a Russian "technological pacing challenge" in tanks today? Or in manned bombers? Or in missile development?

Post-Cold War Submarine Force

Today the U.S. Navy's attack submarine force is undergoing a severe reduction, from 95 SSNs at the end of the Cold War to the 45 to 55 submarines approved by the Bottom-Up Review of 1993. This is a 50 percent reduction. It is possible that this year's Quad-rennial Review (QDR) could lead to a further reduction in attack submarines.

Coupled with this dramatic change in force size, the primary attack submarine mission has shifted from open-ocean and Arctic Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), to a more complex mission regime in what are called littoral or coastal areas. While the Navy is still sorting out specific missions for submarines in the littoral environment it has already become apparent that our torpedoes and sonars are not as effective as in the open ocean. Further, we must still maintain the open-ocean submarine capabilities.

Thus, the challenges to the (smaller) U.S. submarine force are considerable.

At this time our record of technology development is uneven. U.S. nuclear submarine emphasis has long been on the "back of the boat"--the engineering plant. The "front end," the hull design, non-engineering systems, sensors, and weapons have been similar for more than three decades with relatively marginal improvements. We see this in the similarity of the front ends of the PERMIT class (13 units), STURGEON class (37 units), and the LOS ANGELES class (62 units)--virtually no "front end" innovation.

Indeed, the first 39 submarines of the LOS ANGELES class have no minelaying or under-ice capability, and all of the LOS ANGELES class have a reduced depth capability, part of the cost for them to regain a few knots of speed that were lost by having the same power plant in three previous classes.
The SEAWOLF-class attack submarine was developed in an effort to improve the "front end" as well as to put to sea a larger reactor plant. At great cost we increased the submarine's speed, depth, firepower, and stealth over the LOS ANGELES class. But the SEAWOLF was too expensive. As early as January 1985, a study undertaken for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy called attention to the fact that a single SEAWOLF would cost more than twice as much as a LOS ANGELES SSN

Indeed, largely because of its cost, the SEAWOLF became the most controversial submarine program in American history. When the Cold War ended the Bush Administration cancelled the entire 29-ship SEAWOLF program except for the lead submarine. Pressure from the nuclear submarine community, led by Admiral Bruce DeMars, and shipyard influence caused the Congress to fund two more SEAWOLF-class submarines.

With the cutback in the SAEWOLF program, the cost of the three-ship class has risen astronomically. The third SEAWOLF is expected to cost in excess of $ 3 billion. Also, the lead sub-marine, the SSN-21, will be placed in commission some 2½ years behind the original Navy schedule, and at much greater cost than envisioned.

The SEAWOLF is unaffordable in the post-Cold War era.

The Navy's response is the New Attack Submarine (NSSN).

Soviet/Russian Submarine Development

While the U.S. Navy sought to retain superiority in acoustic quieting it sacrificed many submarine attributes: speed, depth, weapons payload, survivability, the advantages of double-hull construction, and certain other features.

The Soviet Union sought to retain these features in their sub-marines. In doing so the Soviets continually surprised us; the following list reflects undersea warfare areas in which Soviet developments were unexpected by most Western naval experts:

Performance
o Depth
- Mike SSN (3,000+ ft)
- Alfa SSN (2,000-2,500 ft)

o Speed
- Papa SSGN (44.7 knots)
- Alfa SSN (42-43 knots)
- Sierra SSN (35+ knots)

Hull-Machinery-Electrical
o Quieting (passive and active)
- Akula (1985)
- Improved Akula (c. 1991)
- Akula II (c. 1995)

o Hull coatings
- anechoic
- self-quieting
- drag reduction

o High-density nuclear plants

o Hydrodynamic design

o Automation (with greatly reduced manning)

Weapons/Sensors
o Strategic missile ranges
o Wake-homing torpedoes
o Large-diameter torpedoes (650-mm)
o Large-payload torpedoes
- approx. 650 pounds for U.S. Mk 48
- 1,000+ pounds for Soviet torpedoes
o Rocket torpedoes (180+ knots)
o Non-acoustic ASW
- satellite/radar
- in situ wake detection
- other

As the Soviet submarine force advanced in these areas, U.S. submarine leaders held to the view that the U.S. submarine force was superior because of our lead in acoustics or quieting. There were, however, ominous signs that the Soviets were making progress in submarine quieting. The Soviet Akula class, which went to sea in the mid-1980s, was far quieter than expected. The Akula's appearance led to a House-sponsored study that concluded that because of Soviet submarine acoustic quieting, "We believe that the [U.S.] Navy must, in effect, 'start over' in its approach to ASW."

Addressing specific Soviet submarine developments--called into focus by the unexpected low noise levels of the Akula--the report continued:

... it is true that the Soviets' submarine R&D [research and development] program is extremely ambitious, [it] seems to over-look no promising technologies, and--in that it dates back many years--is no flash in the pan. As a result of their years of intensive research it appears that the Soviets may well be ahead of us in certain technologies, such as titanium structures and control of the hydrodynamic flow around a submarine.

But far more important is the improvement that the Soviets have made in submarine quieting. The problem is not that Soviet submarines are now quieter than ours; they are not. But after decades of building comparatively noisy submarines, the Soviets have now begun to build submarines that are quiet enough to present for us a major technological challenge with profound national security implications.

The Improved Akula SSN, which went to sea in 1990, soon revealed that the Soviets had surpassed the U.S. Navy in some areas of acoustic quieting--the Improved Akula was quieter than our newest attack submarines, the Improved LOS ANGELES class. Admiral J.M. Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations, told the House:

This is the first time since we put NAUTILUS to sea that [the Russians] have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.

While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world, one wonders if we have "all" the data needed to evaluate the acoustic signature of the Akula II, and the potential noise level of the Russian SEVERODVINSK, now on the building ways. If the past is any guide to the future, it is likely that the SEVERODVINSK will be significantly quieter than the Akula series--and quieter than the SEAWOLF, which was designed several years before the SEVERODVINSK. Discussions that I have had with senior officials of Russia's Rubin and Malachite design bureaus reinforce the view that future Russian submarines will be quieter and have significantly improved performance.

http://fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970318n.htm

PS:Interesting titbit about Pak's midget subs in the '71 war.Was the IN ship allegedly unsuccessfully attacked the Kukhri ,sunk in the war,or was it another ship? Interesting fact for naval historians.

In the late 1960s, Pakistan ordered six SX-404s to a slightly modified design. The Pakistani Navy deployed its six boats against the Indian Navy during the 1971 war. One of them, reportedly fitted with external torpedo tubes fired on an Indian naval frigate, INS Kukri, but the torpedo remained stuck in its external launcher. Of the six, one was lost with all hands as a result of an accident on December 27, 1976. Following removal from service, four were scrapped and one was placed ashore as an exhibit in the Pakistan Maritime Museum in Karachi.

http://covertshores.blogspot.in/

PPS:To give you an idea of the advantages of a larger N-sub,ck into this excellent video-doc of a restored Typhoon sub at sea.
Secret Russian sub.Mission invisible.
http://rt.com/news/241441-strategic-bom ... eployment/

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12155
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pankajs » 06 Apr 2015 20:08

Livefist ‏@livefist 13m13 minutes ago

Re-up: France's @DCNSgroup Offers India 2 'Quick' Scorpenes. http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/11/ ... -dcns.html

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9535
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 06 Apr 2015 20:36

I wonder how much French will charge for that. One mango question - What is the meaning of the word - Kalavari? Some Tamil word?
Last edited by Yagnasri on 06 Apr 2015 20:51, edited 1 time in total.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby prahaar » 06 Apr 2015 20:48

negi wrote:Gende ka phool, tiranga, swastick aur nariyal (Marigold, tri-colour, swastick and coconut) SDREs manage find ways to decorate everything with this stuff. Btw what are those white flowers ? Jasmine ? looks like a reel of Gajra. :mrgreen:


One quick question. Usually there is a lady invited to perform the nariyal breaking. Did they not have anyone invited this time around? I distinctly remember Mrs.Singh breaking the coconut on the sail of Arihant.

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 06 Apr 2015 21:04

prahaar wrote:
negi wrote:Gende ka phool, tiranga, swastick aur nariyal (Marigold, tri-colour, swastick and coconut) SDREs manage find ways to decorate everything with this stuff. Btw what are those white flowers ? Jasmine ? looks like a reel of Gajra. :mrgreen:


One quick question. Usually there is a lady invited to perform the nariyal breaking. Did they not have anyone invited this time around? I distinctly remember Mrs.Singh breaking the coconut on the sail of Arihant.


This is a float out and not an actual launch

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 06 Apr 2015 21:07

Yagnasri wrote:I wonder how much French will charge for that. One mango question - What is the meaning of the word - Kalavari? Some Tamil word?


It means Tiger Shark--- it was also the name of India's first foxtrot class sub-- INS Kalvari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Kalvari_%28S23%29)

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9535
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 06 Apr 2015 21:15

Yagnasri wrote:I wonder how much French will charge for that. One mango question - What is the meaning of the word - Kalavari? Some Tamil word?


Checked Wiki Chaha on the name of this class. It says:

Calvary, also Golgotha /ˈɡɒlɡəθə/, was, according to the Gospels, a site immediately outside Jerusalem's walls where Jesus was crucified.[1] Golgotha(s) (Γολγοθάς) is the Greek transcription in the New Testament of an Aramaic term that has traditionally been presumed to be Gûlgaltâ (but see below for an alternative). The Bible translates the term to mean place of [the] skull, which in Greek is Κρανίου Τόπος (Kraníou Tópos), and in Latin is Calvariæ Locus, from which the English word Calvary is derived.

I do not know if this is the name? Earlier Foxtrot class was also called Kalavari class.

Good news after a long wait. No news on the time lines of other boats. Hope rest come faster.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1802
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srin » 06 Apr 2015 21:26

Do we have options to make/buy additional Scorpenes ? Usually, in big deals like this (and MMRCA) an additional 50% of numbers can be purchased as options with some amount of price stability.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 06 Apr 2015 21:53

Yagnasri wrote:
Checked Wiki Chaha on the name of this class. It says:

Calvary, also Golgotha /ˈɡɒlɡəθə/, was, according to the Gospels, a site immediately outside Jerusalem's walls where Jesus was crucified.[1] Golgotha(s) (Γολγοθάς) is the Greek transcription in the New Testament of an Aramaic term that has traditionally been presumed to be Gûlgaltâ (but see below for an alternative). The Bible translates the term to mean place of [the] skull, which in Greek is Κρανίου Τόπος (Kraníou Tópos), and in Latin is Calvariæ Locus, from which the English word Calvary is derived.

I do not know if this is the name? Earlier Foxtrot class was also called Kalavari class.

Good news after a long wait. No news on the time lines of other boats. Hope rest come faster.


Well at least it's not Kolaveri di. :)

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 06 Apr 2015 21:55

pankajs wrote:
Livefist ‏@livefist 13m13 minutes ago

Re-up: France's @DCNSgroup Offers India 2 'Quick' Scorpenes. http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/11/ ... -dcns.html


They are worried that DRDO just might get it right with the AIP

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 06 Apr 2015 21:59

Singha wrote:thats what cheen did with the Yuan class after building some 636 Kilos under license. they use a similar hull form and tested out as much local kit as available, licensing the rest.

I do not think P75I will bring any great advance in hull form over the scorpene, which looks quite similar to U212 and Amur the two contenders. a enlarged Scorpene to accomodate 4 UVLS tubes (3 missiles each) and a decent local AIP system would present the path of least upheaval.

but dharma says we need to upend the whole farm and do it all over again after wasting 10 yrs.

if we were getting a really large cutting edge design like SORYU I would support a new tender, but for Amur or U214 its not worth the time.


Which sort of reminds me. We 'got ToT' in the Scorpene deal. But (as posters have said) if we try to build more, introduce improvements, functionality etc., we run into licensing issues. So what exactly have got with 'ToT'? The whole thing reminds of the 'deep license' for the SU-30MKI—except the Russians screamed IP violation when we tried to use Indian made tires.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 07 Apr 2015 03:08

Defence Minister asks MDL and Goa Shipyard to double production.


He said setting a time-frame and meeting it will be a key factor in manufacturing warships. “We have to make more and submarines.”

Parrikar asked the defence public sector yards —— MDL and Goa shipyard —— to double their production in the coming three years. “I have asked all the defence PSUs to double their production in the next three years,” he said.

The defence minister also said that as far as P75(I) Project was concerned, private players can also be invited for a joint venture, which would help in the early completion of the project. P75(I) is the next project of the Navy under which six submarines will be built in India.

He warned that if the project was not completed within the stipulated timeframe, the defaulting yard would have to pay a penalty. Early completion of the project, on the other hand, would be rewarded with a bonus, he said.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Apr 2015 09:19

i wonder when INS Aridaman will be ready for floating out in trials?

conflicting reports says she was launched into water in end 2012, then some reports claim her reactor was under assembly mid 2014 which surely means she would be drydocked with a gaping hole behind the sail.

its high time we completed the FOC of Arihant and got Aridaman into trials. Aridaman with 8 tubes will be more useful as a deterrent.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4536
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 Apr 2015 10:34

Yagnasri wrote:
Checked Wiki Chaha on the name of this class. It says:

Calvary, also Golgotha /ˈɡɒlɡəθə/, was, according to the Gospels, a site immediately outside Jerusalem's walls where Jesus was crucified.[1] Golgotha(s) (Γολγοθάς) is the Greek transcription in the New Testament of an Aramaic term that has traditionally been presumed to be Gûlgaltâ (but see below for an alternative). The Bible translates the term to mean place of [the] skull, which in Greek is Κρανίου Τόπος (Kraníou Tópos), and in Latin is Calvariæ Locus, from which the English word Calvary is derived.

I do not know if this is the name? Earlier Foxtrot class was also called Kalavari class.

Good news after a long wait. No news on the time lines of other boats. Hope rest come faster.


means Tiger Shark, not the name of some site outside Jerusalem.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 07 Apr 2015 14:56

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:

Cosmo_R, those big names apart, reality is neither could do anything to prevent India from getting basic stuff .. basically there is a huge group of folks who dislike india and indians and their political/idealogical issues are impacting us.

As matter of fact, another person (this one from Khan) said similar stuff happened in the past with euros and "they quickly figured not to take our stuff".. with israel, france/europe, russian vendors all in the fray, only one suffering is khan TBH.


KaranM, the game is influencing US policy towards India. We don't have the same clout as Israel does because of wealthy Jews like Sheldon Adelson who can scare the pants off the US Congress and end -run the GOTUS.

After Sheldon, the most influential are Boeing, GE, LM, NG, Raytheon and General Atomics. If we had any coherent strategy on Defense (we don't) we could tell DoS to take a flying leap.

On a RoI basis, paying off the MIC in the US reaps much greater return than spending on FR/EU/RU. We have to understand the game and play it well. Nobody dislikes money and the color of money is white. :)


If we don't have the clout, why should we put a gun to our own head and then put our crown jewels in the hands of those who might squeeze them? its one thing to buy a handful of transports and engines (we can always stock more engines). quite another to consistently put our faith in an establishment which doesn't seem to abide by any consistent rules. the stuff about depending on the good graces of a carter or a this or that, just typifies our challenges. we cannot & shouldn't rely on such whimsy.

better to either rely on our own or when thats not possible in the short term procure from more politically reliable suppliers (wherever possible).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 07 Apr 2015 14:58

Cosmo_R wrote:
Singha wrote:thats what cheen did with the Yuan class after building some 636 Kilos under license. they use a similar hull form and tested out as much local kit as available, licensing the rest.

I do not think P75I will bring any great advance in hull form over the scorpene, which looks quite similar to U212 and Amur the two contenders. a enlarged Scorpene to accomodate 4 UVLS tubes (3 missiles each) and a decent local AIP system would present the path of least upheaval.

but dharma says we need to upend the whole farm and do it all over again after wasting 10 yrs.

if we were getting a really large cutting edge design like SORYU I would support a new tender, but for Amur or U214 its not worth the time.


Which sort of reminds me. We 'got ToT' in the Scorpene deal. But (as posters have said) if we try to build more, introduce improvements, functionality etc., we run into licensing issues. So what exactly have got with 'ToT'? The whole thing reminds of the 'deep license' for the SU-30MKI—except the Russians screamed IP violation when we tried to use Indian made tires.


the big thing was always welding tech and then assembly of aggregates to high precision. but as private and public industry can now weld the most complex boilers for n-plants, that alone is not the answer it once was.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 07 Apr 2015 15:56

ravip wrote:what is that white colour cover, will it be removed or is it a dual coloured submarine?


to protect the anechoic tiles in all likelihood

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2015 17:29

When new subs are launched,the bows are usually concealed as they give clues as to the shape,etc of the bow sonar.They are as in USN subs,covered with the flag of the country. On some Russian/IN subs,there are discrete markings which indicate the location of flank sonars,etc. so that tugs,etc., do not damage the hull/sonars at that point.

What differences there are between the sonars on PN Agostas (TMS 2233MK-2),Chilean,Malaysian Scorpene and our version is an unknown qty. Some sources say that upto 6 Exocets can be carried.

Some info on the PLAN's new 093 N-subs.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0407000124
PLA's Type 093G submarines 'could destroy Izumo'

Staff Reporter 2015-04-07
A satellite image indicates that China has completed the construction of its new Type 093G attack submarines. (Internet photo)

China's new Type 093G nuclear-powered attack submarine would be powerful enough to defeat Japan's new helicopter destroyer Izumo in a potential naval confrontation over disputed East China Sea territory, according to the state-run China News Service (CNS).

Photos of three submarines selected to be the upgraded version of the Type 093G were recently revealed on a Chinese military website. Developed as the upgraded version of the Type 093 Shang-class attack submarine, the Type 093G will exceed 1,000 tonnes, according to Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo of the PLA Navy.

The submarine is being compared with Russia's Oscar-class submarines by internet users because both classes are designed to attack aircraft carriers.

The Type 093G, however, still falls short of its Russian counterpart, which are able to equip 24 P-700 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles, Yin said. The Type 093G can only hold 12 anti-ship cruise missiles designed after the Second Artillery Corps' land attack cruise missile, the CJ-10. The attack range of the missile is more than 2,000 kilometers, according to the Chinese admiral.

With a vertical launching system similar to the Los Angeles-class, nuclear-powered fast attack submarines of the US Navy, the Type 093G can fire beneath the surface of the water. It may not be powerful enough to engage the US carrier battle groups in the Asia-Pacific, but it is certainly capable of dealing with Japan's helicopter carrier in the region. The Japan Maritime Self Defense Force is currently unable to intercept China's long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28840 » 07 Apr 2015 17:36

Singha wrote:i wonder when INS Aridaman will be ready for floating out in trials?

conflicting reports says she was launched into water in end 2012, then some reports claim her reactor was under assembly mid 2014 which surely means she would be drydocked with a gaping hole behind the sail.

its high time we completed the FOC of Arihant and got Aridaman into trials. Aridaman with 8 tubes will be more useful as a deterrent.


Singha Ji,

Aridaman will also be 4 tubes. Its the 3rd boat which will be constructed with 8 tubes.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 07 Apr 2015 19:24

I distinctly remember a report which said that after INS Arihant all others in this class will have 8 tubes.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Apr 2015 20:12

It seems p chidambaram asked it to be 8 saying 4 was too low during a project review
Wiki says aridaman will be 8

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28840 » 07 Apr 2015 20:54

^^ Sorry gents,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5039&start=3920#p1820557

I remember seeing the same thing in another report (which I cant seem to find, I have tried searching).

I assume they kept the hull the same to minimize changes, besides they have been fabricating Arihant since late 90's or early 2000's, probably started the Aridaman soon after as well.

With that being said, if it does turn out that they 1) designed Aridaman to have 8 tubes from the start or 2) Added in a plug at some point, I will be more than willing to eat my own hat out of sheer joy.


Edit later : looked at the post i linked again, I read that as S4* (implying the 3rd boat S4 with the * being a note symbol) being the one with 8 Tubes, but the statement is a bit ambiguous, is there a 4th boat (i.e S4*) that the author is alluding to?

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ravip » 07 Apr 2015 21:13

The nuclear submariners see the year 2012 as a game changing year when INS Arihant joins, and it is reported that two more ATVs are planned. The second hull will have four large long range K-4 nuclear tipped missiles and the third may have an additional plug for a total of eight K-4 missiles.

Cmde (Retd) Ranjit B Rai
The author is a former Director Naval Operations (DNO) and Naval Intelligence (DNI).

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories886.htm

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 07 Apr 2015 21:15

s4 would be 3rd boat, as s1 = land based reactor.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28840 » 07 Apr 2015 21:19

Thanks Ravi. I think that might have been the article i remember reading.
Kind of feel disappointed reading it though :(

@ Rahul, I get that, the statement in the linked post was ambiguous as it referred to an S4 (3rd boat) and an S4* (4th boat?? , akin to Agni II Prime before being revealed as Agni IV).

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby adityadange » 08 Apr 2015 09:47

The submarine is being compared with Russia's Oscar-class submarines by internet users because both classes are designed to attack aircraft carriers.

The Type 093G, however, still falls short of its Russian counterpart, which are able to equip 24 P-700 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles, Yin said. The Type 093G can only hold 12 anti-ship cruise missiles designed after the Second Artillery Corps' land attack cruise missile, the CJ-10. The attack range of the missile is more than 2,000 kilometers, according to the Chinese admiral.


funny article that.
sounds like

The pakistani nasr missile is being compared with russia's topol-m since both of the missiles are designed to attach land based targets. however nasr falls short of its russian counterpart which is able to carry 3 tonnes(or whatever) of multiple warheads. the nasr can carry only 200kg(or whatever)

Added later:
just checked wiki pages of oscar-class and type 093. the former is 12-14k tonne submarine while latter is around 7k tonnes. why these people are so obsessed to prove 'mine is bigger' (in this case 'mine is as long as his'). pathetic.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Apr 2015 11:26

One would hope that the next ATV S-3, will have 8 silos instead of the measly 4 on the S-2 (Arihant).The designation "K-15" may also indicate a max range of 1500km instead of the "750KM" put out in official statements,albeit with a smaller N-warhead. Therefore,12 K-15 missiles is not to be sneered at for the first SSBN effort,esop. if the missiles have MIRVs.We need to "walk before we can run",an old quote allegedly made by the late Adm.Ronnie Pereira who wanted us to first learn the art of building conventional subs before building/operating N-subs.

But if we want to possess a truly secure strat. arsenal at sea,then we need SSBNs with missiles of at least 8-10,000km range which can operate anywhere in the IOR far away from any patrols of PLAN SSNs.That would mean a much larger SSBN,of at least 12,000t with 12-16 missile silos with each missile having a min. of 5+ warheads. Developing such a large sub might take us at least another decade,but we could certainly develop the missile much earlier ( size for SSBNs) and use them on land on mobile launchers,so that when the subs are ready the missiles could be mated without much effort.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Gyan » 08 Apr 2015 11:38

My Suggestions for division of work :-

L&T – SSN, SSBNs and Unmanned submerged Subs
Hindustan Shipyard – Upgrades of Kilos, HDWs, Midget Submarines
Maz Docks – Scorps and then indigenous Line based on Scorp design

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 509
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SNaik » 08 Apr 2015 11:55


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JTull » 08 Apr 2015 13:25

There are couple of partial pictures of the incomplete hulls on the side of the Kalavari. Did anyone have any luck with better pictures?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Apr 2015 15:33

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... ew_OPV.htm

DCNS’S EXPANDING PRESENCE IN INDIA

In India, DCNS is currently engaged in the $ 5 bill worth construction of six SSK Scorpene submarines (Project 75) at Mazagon Docks (MDL) in Mumbai under the transfer of technology (ToT) route. DCNS India has also been working to select and qualify Indian companies as partners for local production of the Scorpenes’ components and has tied up with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd (WIL) for supplying critical components for its local and international submarine projects and for supplying the Raft Mounted Engine Platforms (RMEP) for the four Type 28 Kamorta class ASW Corvettes being built at GRSE Kolkatta.

This was revealed by DCNS Chairman Patrick Boissier in 2010 while unveiling of Walchand’s "Vinod Doshi Technology Center" set up by at Pune, which employs many former naval officers.

Since the 1970s commencing with the ambitious and very successful Leander project, WIL has been a large supplier of plumber blocks and shaft lines to the Indian naval ships. It also supplies nuclear reactor components for India’s nuclear plants and has contributed heavily to the 80 MW nuclear reactor built by Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) for India’s first nuclear submarine INS Arihant scheduled for sea trials off Vishakapatnam later this year.

DCNS has also signed a contract with Flash Forge India Pvt Ltd, based in Visakhapatnam, for collaboration and manufacturing of mechanical equipment, and to fulfil offset obligations. India’s follow on two nuclear submarines are reported to have different characteristics from INS Arihant and are incorporating more modern imported and indigenous technologies and systems, offered by DCNS.

DCNS has set up DCNS Private (India) Ltd in New Delhi. At Mumbai, CEO Xavier Marchal oversees activities with MDL and has Spain’s Navantia Shipyard involved in engine room construction activity, aft of section seven of the Scorpene submarines. DCNS is also actively looking to bid for the $ 7 billion follow on six Project 75-India submarine RFP which is being formulated for issue with AIP requirements.

DCNS is also eyeing other naval projects in collaboration with Indian shipyards, like the four Mistral type LPD project and the Coast Guard OPVs projects approved by Defence Acquisition Council (DAC).

Managing Director of DCNS (India) Bernard Buisson has elaborated the role of the company, “We are in India to establish partnerships with the Indian industry to develop local capability and to perform genuine transfers of technologies. We are providing our Indian partners with knowhow and technical assistance to manufacture equipments which will be installed onboard the Scorpene submarines. MDL, our main contractor, is also to sub-contract work to these local players. Together, we are qualifying the suitable companies which are meeting the rigorous specifications needed for the submarines”.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 Apr 2015 05:01

Karan M wrote:..

better to either rely on our own or when thats not possible in the short term procure from more politically reliable suppliers (wherever possible).


Not possible. Unkil occupies a strategic space and capability that we need to counter China. Thirty years ago we were ahead of them economically. We are now the 4x behind them thanks to stupid systems and politicians.

In our battle with China (and it is one whether we want to admit it or not), don't count on the Japanese or SOKO or Oz. The only power that can balance is the US. We squandered the chance to do it ourselves long ago.

We don't have Sheldon but we can have Boeing/LM/NG/GE/Raytheon until we can actually do it ourselves.

Whether the US is a reliable 'ally' or whether they think we are is not the issue. It is convergence of interests.

Of course, we could insist on 'principles' but that is not conducive to strategic space. Statecraft is not akin to the to and fro of high school romance.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 502
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 09 Apr 2015 05:46

JTull wrote:There are couple of partial pictures of the incomplete hulls on the side of the Kalavari. Did anyone have any luck with better pictures?


Some moments at the beginning than start watching after 2.15.




-Ankit

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2015 06:48

the 2nd hull is missing its sonar dome, the sail and the engine room section in back.
atleast a year to go for floating out.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 09 Apr 2015 08:31

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:..

better to either rely on our own or when thats not possible in the short term procure from more politically reliable suppliers (wherever possible).


Not possible. Unkil occupies a strategic space and capability that we need to counter China.


Sorry, but where is this "not possible" coming from? A flawed assumption, which then translates to us giving Unkil our jewels? W

We see much better systems available from Israel/Europe as well. Why should we procure only from Unkil and leave our policies on TSP exposed to their tender ministrations.

Airbus aircraft - as good as Boeings.

Israeli/MBDA missiles - every bit as good as/better than Khans..

And so it goes.

Thirty years ago we were ahead of them economically. We are now the 4x behind them thanks to stupid systems and politicians.

In our battle with China (and it is one whether we want to admit it or not), don't count on the Japanese or SOKO or Oz. The only power that can balance is the US. We squandered the chance to do it ourselves long ago.


I am sorry but what is this "We are 4x behind them" stuff. If engaging economically with the US is required, lets do that. PRC did it without having to buy its entire armament and deterrence system from the US either.

PRC is ahead of us in some GDP etc numbers fine - but it doesn't translate to all sectors & a professional GOI can do far more than clutching at Unkils coat strings (we tried that for the past decade, it got us nowhere).

Nothing I see in the PRC inventory makes it a cakewalk for them. We have a million strong Army, professionally trained to boot & can hold them off. Further, I don't think either PRC or India are going head to head anytime.

Err.. and I don't think we have lost out yet. I look around & I see increasing amounts of Indian gear entering service & the Indian pvt sector poised for entry.

So..

We don't have Sheldon but we can have Boeing/LM/NG/GE/Raytheon until we can actually do it ourselves.


Thanks but no thanks. Why do we need Boeing/LM/NG/GE/Raytheon when we can have Tata/L&T/BEL etc? With IAI/UAC/BAe etc?

Heck, even Khan vendors admit they have no USP over several of their rivals. Why should we rush in then to hold ourselves out to ransom?

Whether the US is a reliable 'ally' or whether they think we are is not the issue. It is convergence of interests.


There is clearly no convergence on TSP for instance. Their reliability matters because if India is in a conflict with TSP and some smart beanie thinks that spares need to be held out, then what?

Here we have a situation wherein we'd be giving them a loaded gun pointed to our own head as a symbol of "trust", over what exactly?

Where is the convergence of interests over EJs? Over HR wallahs? Over meddling in Indian affairs? Over all this stuff we don't face with either the Israelis or Russians?

Of course, we could insist on 'principles' but that is not conducive to strategic space. Statecraft is not akin to the to and fro of high school romance.

c
But isn't it romantic to believe in the knight in shining armor eg Boeing etc coming in as the savior when the reality is all otherwise...

What you are saying is - big, bad China. Only US.
US is saying, big, bad China. India needed. But hey do what we say on TSP.
Either ways, clearly India has enough going on its own to stand upto PRC if it plays its cards right. As versus hanging on to Unkil Sams coat tails and paying huge social and strategic costs - untrammelled EJ activity (See SoKO demographic change), bending over to TSP on every whim, playing the Sooth Asia peace pipe and what not.

Build a strong economic relationship by all means. Just don't hold your military out to ransom and by extension your policy.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 09 Apr 2015 09:15

There used to be a saying on BR: "the dragon has false teeth." That's not true any more. The Chinese military has significantly improved since the early 2000's. Nonetheless, there is no need for panic.

For instance:

China also has a lot of fighter planes. Between the People’s Liberation Army Air Force and the air arm of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, China boasts no fewer than 1,321 fighter aircraft, an aerial armada only slightly smaller than America’s.

But China’s air forces likewise maintain mostly obsolete jets. Of 1,321 fighters, only 502 are modern—296 variants of the Russian Su-27 and 206 J-10s of an indigenous design. The remaining 819 fighters—mostly J-7s, J-8s and Q-5s—are 1960s designs built in the 1970s. They wouldn’t last long in a shooting war.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-ch ... 12e8ef7edc

Furthermore, the Su-30 MKI is far superior to the J-11B/Su-27 and the J-10. (Obviously, this is OT for the Naval thread, but I've studied the Chinese Air Force. That's why I mention it. Also, I have significant doubts about the future performance of the J-20 and the J-31.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 09 Apr 2015 09:25

A, more than that, I doubt the quality of their actual staff
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/ ... s-military
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/is-corru ... paredness/

Of course no reason to underestimate them either, but I do think that with proper eqpt flowing into IA again.. the PRC bluster will diminish rapidly.

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 09 Apr 2015 16:13

INS Arihant at the docks on google maps (satellite image)

Seems a different picture from the one posted before on GE. That one was on the jetty next to the de-gaussing facility. This one is the half covered shed.

17.710467, 83.268059

No patience to post a snapshot in line. Maybe someone else can do that


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests