Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2015 20:03

from what i read in TOI, Barak8 is now fitted on Kolkata and headed for sea trials and is also fitted on the second ship.

but ofcourse thats different from the 120km range LRSAM except the 2nd stage KV.

I do not understand the new article about a 40km range MRSAM with the IA, when Akash2 can be done and possibly in a cansister launch VL config...when the LRSAM is 4 years late, why obstruct the natural growth of the Akash and go in for this MRSAM

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 May 2015 21:12

Karan M wrote:Its better than expected given how pathetic the MiG-29k situation is. Another example of how MiG has delivered a turkey to India while the resident Russian-PR-bandwagon-run down Indian orgs character wants India to buy more MiGs. Thankfully Sukhoi while lackadaisical about spares is improving in that respect and is not as crooked.

Karan,

I don't agree with the Mig-29Ks being turkeys. The inside story is that the IAF is a little jealous of the Mig-29Ks. Besides, we should not come to conclusions in the first year of operation. There would have been hardly any flights of the deck in the initial months. Our pilots are getting trained, and only a few of them are cleared for deck landing. The same goes for the maintenance crew. I am sure STBF is buzzing with activity. We should revisit these numbers in the 3rd to 4th year, where training is not the bottleneck but spare parts are.

The good news is the vessel seems to be fine. I was really worried about it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2015 11:05

india ships even the kolkata seem to have permanent railings on the foredeck, thus increasing rcs, while stealthier designs like the french lafayette have excluded this railing completely.

http://www.kyivpost.com/media/images/20 ... al_big.jpg

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 23 May 2015 11:50

These railings are radar transparent.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2015 12:26

but in psyops "looks" the railings all over the ship detract and make it look like the usual Rus/Ukr design with a zoo of antennas and radars sticking out in all directions.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2015 12:37

I read those railings can be put down/removed once it goes on sail or combat.

IN has a concept of well balanced ship not leaning toward stealth at cost of armament or sea keeping qualities along with endurance and firepower to match we need it for our need , although the firepower is leaning more towards anti-ship capabilities and likely that would remain so looking at the upcoming design but I like the approach of Delhi based Naval Design Bureau towards a balanced concept I hope it stays that way.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 May 2015 13:35

Lisa wrote:
Philip wrote: In one year, the Indian Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier spent a total of 220 days at sea and its aircraft have carried out 240 takeoffs and landings
...
Does that mean that there was ballpark ONE take and landing per day. Is this normal?

No. This was more of a transition year from Russians to Indians. See the bolded below.

Philip wrote:...

INS Vikramaditya completes a year with the Indian Navy
November 25, 2014 Alexander Yemelyanenkov,
In one year, the Indian Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier spent a total of 220 days at sea and its aircraft have carried out 240 takeoffs and landings [/url]

Vikramaditya marks a year of service in the Indian Navy. Source: Sevmash press service.
It’s been over a year since the INS Vikramaditya was handed over to the Indian Navy.

Recently, specialists from Rosoboronexport and Russian equipment suppliers inspected the flagship Indian aircraft carrier as a part of the warranty agreement.

According to Sergey Marichev, Deputy Director General of the defense shipyard Sevmash, where the carrier has been substantially re-born, the Indian Navy has been using the ship intensively for the entire year. It spent more than 220 days at sea. “And that's more than the aircraft carrier spent in the Northern Seas on factory tests in two years,” the Severodvinsk shipyard said in a press note.

Since the official transfer of Vikramaditya, several Indian leaders have the visited the ship, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the presence of distinguished guests, and in a conventional setting, the MiG-26 K/KUBs have carried out 240 takeoffs and landings. As a result, the Indian pilots under the supervision of the MiG Corp completed the entire training program, including the preparation for independent night flights.

During the whole time, the aircraft carrier had aboard a guarantee group of Sevmash specialists, who provided technical advice when needed and responded promptly to one or the other difficulty related to operating systems and mechanisms. The one-year warranty service expired on November 16th. But even before the expiration, the Indian side expressed the desire to extend the business relationship with the Russian shipyard and to agree on the service support for the aircraft carrier for its entire life cycle, which is at least 20 years.

Russian shipbuilders and representatives of the Indian Defence Ministry are meeting in New Delhi this week to discuss the details of the carrier's after-sales service. And in late November, Vikramaditya will be put to sea again in order to continue flying aircraft in low visibility conditions.
...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2015 16:14

http://news.usni.org/2015/05/21/india-w ... 234c8f82d4

India Will Relaunch First Domestic Carrier Vikrant Next Week, More Money Approved for Second Carrier
By: Sam LaGrone

May 21, 2015
India’s indigenous carrier Vibrant during its initial 2013 launching.

India’s long-delayed carrier is set to enter the water next week while the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi government has approved more money for development of the second indigenous carrier, according to local press reports.

The 40,000-ton INS Vikrant is set to launch from the Cochin Shipyard in the southwest on May 28 following a dry dock period after the initial launch ceremony of the ship in 2013.

“All major equipment has gone into the vessel, which has now acquired the shape of an aircraft carrier, with a finished hull,” said a yard official to The Hindu earlier this month.

“Barring a bit of ongoing work on the super structure, structural work is all over and the internal compartments have all been welded in.”

Construction woes have dogged Vikrant — which was originally awarded to Cochin in 2005 — delaying the ship by five years with reported budget overruns as high as $4 billion.

The program was largely stalled until 2014 when the newly elected Modi backed a plan to inject almost $3.18 billion into completing Vikrant in July following a visit to India’s Russian built carrier — INS Vikramaditya

The Modi government has reportedly put more support behind India’s domestic carrier program as a hedge against an expansionist China. Beijing has reportedly has moved to build their own indigenous carriers for People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) following their acquisition of the Soviet-era Liaoning.

In addition to the relaunch of Vikrant, the Modi government has also set aside about $5 million for development of the indigenous aircraft carrier-II (IAC-II) program — INS Vishal, according to local press reports.

The planned 65,000-ton Vishal is set to be a much more complex ship than its predecessors and could introduce nuclear power and a catapult launching system for the carrier to launch heavier aircraft than India’s current crop of MiG-29K

Vikrant India’s current carriers — Vikramaditya and the 50 year-old carrier INS Viraat, the former British carrier Hermes — are convieitnally powered and launch aircraft via a much simpler short-take off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) system marked by a so-called “ski jump” feature at the bow.
The Indian’s have expressed interest in the General Atomics Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) that has been installed on the U.S. Gerald R. Ford nuclear carrier.

To that end, the U.S. and India announced a greater degree of cooperation in development of carrier technology.

The two countries agreed to “explore” sharing carrier technology and design and establish a working group under a larger January bilateral agreement.

Under the most recent timelines, Vikrant will become operational in 2018 and the more complex Vishal could commission as early as 2033.

INS Viraat is slated to decommission next year.

PS:What do we do once the Viraat is decommissioned,and new Vikrant commissioned by 2017/2018? For anboher 15 years we will have just 2 carriers even as China builds its 3-4 new ones . The need is for the immediate approval of another IAC-1/Vikrant class design,which can arrive around 2020-2022,giving us 3 carriers until the 2030+ period when the N-powered carrier arrives.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 23 May 2015 18:56

This 2030+ for Vishaal is new, earlier it was to be ready in the 2025 time frame.

Now I see reason for another Vikrant duplicate, if there is money to pay for it, as Vikrant class can be sufficient for immediate power projection needs. We will need a nuclear powered super carrier in the 2050 time frame. If we do not see South China sea as a battleground do we need a super carrier now ?

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 24 May 2015 07:08

The IN navy present plan seem to be 5 carrier including INS Vikramaditya, INS Vikrant and 3nos INS Vishal class carriers.

INS Vishal should enter service in 2025-30 timeframe if conventionally powered.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 May 2015 08:16

Visual is huge learning curve and we are not amirkhani shipyard.

Better to build another Vikrant swiftly and in parralel create another building drydock for up to 85000t carriers and lhd

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 May 2015 08:23

Let a new INS Viraat be ordered immediately - of Vikrant class. INS Vishal may be constructed in due course to replace or augment Vikramaditya.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 24 May 2015 08:42

The 2033 time frame datum is from a USN website. How reliable is it, and what are the chances that the Vishal will actually come in significantly earlier, say around 2025?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 24 May 2015 16:38

Vishal class should have the latest and greatest. Why stop at 60,000 tonnes which only increases marginally the capacity of aircraft it can carry. All this will require time to develop unless it is just a beefed up Vikrant with similar features. The Vikrant and a Viraat replacement of the same class will take care of immediate IOR needs with Vikramaditya on extended operations into the South China seas.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 May 2015 17:07

dont think kochi yard can make a 100000 ton super carrier without dock upgrades ..civilian cargo ships are another i think

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 24 May 2015 17:11

Yes, they will need a new dry dock for that class. There is land available to the immediate north side. A diagonal cut for the dry dock will give them the space to build a super carrier if need be.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 May 2015 09:09

Pipapav can handle that.It can build a large CV or even a super-carrier if that is still required a decade from now,given the new revolution in maritime warfare.Now that CSL has mastered the art of the Vikrant class,reward them and the IN with another of the same. This will bring down costs of both building and operating the two carriers.

The statement that it is a "step learning curve" for the N-powered Vishal is spot on.EMALS,cat launched aircraft,N-plant,etc.By 2020,we will also know what success UCAV carrier ops has been achieved.This may then require large not super-carrier size adequate for post 2020 carrier ops.More carriers will also be less vulnerable than putting all one's eggs in the same basket. It would be cheaper to also build more SSGNs/SSNs which could patrol the enemy's coastline on a permanent rotating basis in the Indo-China Sea,giving us intel in advance of any hostile moves.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2015 17:46

Instead of just one super carrier at 90k tonnes (~ 100 aircraft) with its support fleet, why not have two Vikrant class carriers supported by the same to augment smaller carrying capacity. This also means more frequent take-offs and landings as they double the throughput.

Maybe experts can comment. This also reduces risk of a lucky attack on one by the enemy and also opens up flexibility in distributing resources when necessary.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2015 17:49

This whole EMALS on Vishal is angling for foreign aircraft sale isn't it. Without the right types of aircraft EMALS/CATOBAR is pointless. Can the currently planned LCA or Migs on order operate this mode without huge modification costs and delays ?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 May 2015 17:54

EMALS or Steam cats, open up options for an air-wing and not the other way around. If you have the ability to launch larger aircraft you can consider a much different looking air wing than what you can if you have to operate using a ski jump. As far as CATOBAR or EMALS modifications for the Tejas, it would require some re-work and testing but then that is an advantage of a home grown design i.e. you can make those sort of changes rapidly, and at a significantly lower cost compared to a foreign system. From the Mig-29's perspective I am not sure how much cooperation between the US and Russia would be required, but then you have the option on acquiring the AMCA-N, Rafale M, Naval T-50 etc for the long term plans. The Mig-29K came in because that was the only thing that could fly off the current carrier in the required time-frame, and the air wing was somewhat (iirc) a part of the deal for the carrier. Those restrictions may not apply for a carrier or an air wing that would be operational between say 2025/30 to 2050/60.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 25 May 2015 18:50

It would be cheaper to also build more SSGNs/SSNs which could patrol the enemy's coastline on a permanent rotating basis in the Indo-China Sea,giving us intel in advance of any hostile moves.

This should be higher priority with respect to China and patrolling silent in the pacific close to the Asian landmass. As you say with advent of UCAVs super carriers may even not be required.

There is the other issue of the power plant. Most US ships and subs use HEU same as ones planned in India though maybe lower grade than the 80% enriched in use by the US. There are concerted efforts being made to explore use of LEU for reactor core. The motivation is proliferation related as newer players enter the nuke-sub building club and HEU is fungible for weapon use. This can be another source of delay if this path is taken at the cost of compactness and need for refueling mid-life. China has taken this path it seems already. I do not know why.

Naval reactors in need of redesign
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2779
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/ma ... /PT.3.2779

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 May 2015 18:52

The aircraft carrier needs to have AEW of long endurance and range. A Ka-31 has 2.5 hours of endurance while Hawkeye has 6 hours (both brochure specs from wiki). Catapult will give them better acceleration for takeoff.

At the same time, the knowledge that CSL has built shouldn't be wasted. We should have a continuous line of Vikrant class carriers (one every 7-8 years at the current rate) while learning the technologies required for a super-carrier.

As far as nuclear propulsion goes, our first priority should be a line of SSNs, and only then an aircraft carrier.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 25 May 2015 19:02

Can you have emals without a nuke powerplant?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2015 19:17

One can produce electricity using means other than nuclear.

The latest USN destroyer is experimenting with sea water.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 May 2015 21:23

Cosmo_R wrote:Can you have emals without a nuke powerplant?

Yes, the British would have done just that had they gone in for the more expensive option (and more capable) for the two QE carriers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2015 22:35

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/05/n ... after.html

While HSL has been severely criticised for taking nine years to refit Sindhukirti, Business Standard revealed (September 2, 2014, “Russia delayed sub refit to weaken shipyard?”) that the refit might have been deliberately prolonged by Russian experts to ensure that future Indian submarine refits were entrusted to Russian shipyards rather than to HSL.

Earlier Kilo-class refits in Russian shipyard, Zvezdochka, took an average of two and a half years each, and cost hundreds of crore rupees each. Zvezdochka experts who supervised the Sindhukirti’s refit at HSL knew they were assisting a potential competitor, which would indigenise the submarine overhaul business.

As Business Standard reported, each parameter of work that Zvezdochka experts ordered HSL to carry out on the Sindhukirti was several multiples of the work that the Russian shipyard had done while earlier overhauling INS Sindhughosh in Russia.

For example, the most time-consuming and expensive work during a refit involves replacing damaged hull plates. Zvezdochka replaced only three square metres of hull plates while refitting Sindhughosh in Russia. But for Sindhukirti, the Russian experts ordered 39 square metres --- 13 times as much --- hull plating to be replaced.

INS Sindhukirti’s refit has involved extensive modernisation. Like submarines refitted in Russia, its torpedo tubes were modified to fire Klub missiles at surface targets. But Sindhukirti also got additional capabilities: an MCA inertial navigation suite, a Palady nerve system, and a Pirit ship control console. Bharat Electronics Ltd has provided an indigenous Ushus sonar and a modernised CCS Mark II communications suite.

If Russia’s aim was to scuttle further refit orders to HSL, that has been achieved. In October the defence ministry cleared a Rs 4,800 crore refit for six submarines, with two each being refitted in Zvezdochka; in Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai; and in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.

HSL will have to remain content with building two midget submarines, an order worth Rs 2,000 crore that the ministry cleared in February. Known as “strategic operations vessels” or SOVs, these small vessels ferry naval commandoes to enemy coastlines.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 May 2015 22:40

We should just increase the Scorpene orders by another 3 subs and call an end to the new 75I stuff which will end up being gamed by all these worthies all over again. The kilos should be our last Russian submarines as well. Best to go all indigenous design thereafter, Russia can provide subsystems if necessary. If they act smart there too, to push for new Kilos and Amurs and what not, we should fund our local industry to indigenize. A Tata is anyday better than the whims and fancies of these folks.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 26 May 2015 06:38

Navy to ramp up Karwar, Port Blair

The Admiral was speaking at the start of the four-day Naval Commander's Conference here today. The Navy's plan will include additional infrastructure in all-forward operating bases, have new Naval air enclaves, keeping in mind the expansion in the Navy in terms of new ships, submarine, helicopters and fixed wing planes.

-Ankit

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 May 2015 09:25

Karan M wrote:We should just increase the Scorpene orders by another 3 subs and call an end to the new 75I stuff which will end up being gamed by all these worthies all over again. The kilos should be our last Russian submarines as well. Best to go all indigenous design thereafter, Russia can provide subsystems if necessary. If they act smart there too, to push for new Kilos and Amurs and what not, we should fund our local industry to indigenize. A Tata is anyday better than the whims and fancies of these folks.

Agree. The way P-75I project is going the first of its kind won't be inducted until 2030 at the earliest. To make use of that TOT for indigenous design would be even longer. Technology absorption takes time to consolidate and apply to new projects. Better to continue with Scorpene design but with increasing indigenization in every follow-on batches of 3 or 4 subs each.

Some areas of indigenization on follow-on Scorpenes:

Combat Management Systems
Sonar and Sensors
Defensive sub-systems
Modular plugs - such as API, Special Ops, VLS
Offensive systems - Torpedoes, ASM, SAM and their launch mechanisms
Hull materials and fabrications
Propulsion
Stealth improvements - materials, noise

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 26 May 2015 10:24

Karan M wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/05/n ... after.html

While HSL has been severely criticised for taking nine years to refit Sindhukirti, Business Standard revealed (September 2, 2014, “Russia delayed sub refit to weaken shipyard?”) that the refit might have been deliberately prolonged by Russian experts to ensure that future Indian submarine refits were entrusted to Russian shipyards rather than to HSL.

Earlier Kilo-class refits in Russian shipyard, Zvezdochka, took an average of two and a half years each, and cost hundreds of crore rupees each. Zvezdochka experts who supervised the Sindhukirti’s refit at HSL knew they were assisting a potential competitor, which would indigenise the submarine overhaul business.
As Business Standard reported, each parameter of work that Zvezdochka experts ordered HSL to carry out on the Sindhukirti was several multiples of the work that the Russian shipyard had done while earlier overhauling INS Sindhughosh in Russia.
For example, the most time-consuming and expensive work during a refit involves replacing damaged hull plates. Zvezdochka replaced only three square metres of hull plates while refitting Sindhughosh in Russia. But for Sindhukirti, the Russian experts ordered 39 square metres --- 13 times as much --- hull plating to be replaced.
INS Sindhukirti’s refit has involved extensive modernisation. Like submarines refitted in Russia, its torpedo tubes were modified to fire Klub missiles at surface targets. But Sindhukirti also got additional capabilities: an MCA inertial navigation suite, a Palady nerve system, and a Pirit ship control console. Bharat Electronics Ltd has provided an indigenous Ushus sonar and a modernised CCS Mark II communications suite.
If Russia’s aim was to scuttle further refit orders to HSL, that has been achieved. In October the defence ministry cleared a Rs 4,800 crore refit for six submarines, with two each being refitted in Zvezdochka; in Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai; and in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.

HSL will have to remain content with building two midget submarines, an order worth Rs 2,000 crore that the ministry cleared in February. Known as “strategic operations vessels” or SOVs, these small vessels ferry naval commandoes to enemy coastlines.

I think Col. Shukla should probably start limiting his comments to army news only. His memory no longer serves him well.

He is articulating utter crap because of the following
a) He has forgotten that HSL has got in principal approval to build 2 amphibious vessels ( mistral / juan carlos etc ) no matter which private shipyard wins the competition.
b) HSL has got the order to build the OSS ships ( 2 in number )
c) HSL has got order to build midget submarines
d) Supporting govt shipyards eternally should stop and they should be competing with the private shipyard. I don't think most of the private shipyard has a order book greater than HSL.
e) Shukla seems to have political angles/motives lately in most of his posts.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 10:35

The IN's own public assessment of the HSL Kilo refit fiasco should also be read (Posted earlier) ,where it firmly puts the blame on HSL and not Russia. Secondly,who is to refute the Russian assessment that the sub needed the required plate replacements? Did the IN protest about this? If it did and is on record,then it would be a different matter.

The Shukla report appears to be another attempt by an incompetent DPSU to shift the blame onto another OEM to obfuscate its own incompetence. The same "blame game" has gone on with another DPSU over the JV with Israel for the naval/LR-SAM,Barak-8 and its 3 year delay. The French were also blamed by MDL /MOD for the Scorpene delay,5 years,plus the huge cost increases.

The exorbitant cost of MDL built Scorpenes,without AIP one might add,even smaller than our Kilos,without BMos type missiles,is almost as expensive as an N-sub. Unless further Scorpenes with AIP come within reasonable cost,It would be far better to accelerate building our own SSN/SSGNs of approx. 6,000t mentioned, in a parallel line with the SSBNs. If the GOI can take a quick decision on the P-75I programme and choose swiftly the collaborator and yard to build them,then building work on these subs can start even before the last Scorpenes are inducted into the IN.
The alternative as mentioned above in a post,is to acquire ready Amurs on lease/bought ,or a few new Kilos,but I think that the upgrade/refit of existing Kilos has been found adequate by the IN,who want newer subs.The return of the SKirti,thought doomed earlier,is a shot in the arm for the IN.

One only wished that given the inordinate delay in the refit,this Kilo sub could've had an additional plug with VLS silos to be able to launch the sub-variant of the BMos missile,already tested successfully,but lacking a sub for it to be installed.Such a BMos armed Kilo class sub could've been touted by the Indo-Russian BMos JV for export as well,with definite interest from nations like Vietnam,etc,who already operate Kilos,who would also facec no objection for the sale of BMos from both Russia and India.

In any case the second Akula acquisition should be a certainty and one would advocate acquiring at least two more,so that a sqd. of 4 Akula-2 SSGNs will be in service by 2020,at least one SSGN for the same number of SSBNs built at Vizag.This will also make it easier to support the sqd. of Akulas ,spares,maintenance,crews,tarining ,etc. common,bringing down both acquisition and operating costs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 18:02

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/05/26 ... 43327.html
Indian company seeks Russian support to build ships
May 26, 2015 Anton Mardasov, Svobodnaya Pressa

With India opening up its defence sector to private companies, an Indian company, Reliance Infrastructure, is seeking Russian assistance to build nuclear submarines and stealth ships, a newspaper report claimed.

Long report,with plenty of details.It refers in the main to Reliance holding discussions reg. a tie-up which the report says will actually be an Indian govt. approved venture. A few xcpts.

The Indian company Reliance Infrastructure is seeking a Russian partner to launch a joint venture for the construction of nuclear submarines and ships with stealth technology, the newspaper Economic Times reported on May 22.

According to the newspaper, the company's top managers have already met with senior representatives of the Defence Ministry in Moscow. A source close to the negotiations said they would visit Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and name a potential Russian partner with the necessary technological expertise.

According to Lenta.ru, the Russian design bureau (DB) ‘Malachite’ (which built new submarines under Project 885 “Yasen”) said, with the approval of the government, it was ready to participate in this project.

“Our design bureau has all the necessary competence and resource. Our DB designed the nuclear submarine, which is currently leased by India,” the portal quoted the ‘Malachite’ representative as saying.

.... I do not think it will be a sensitive issue to us to transfer technology for the construction of submarines with nuclear propulsion. It would be naive to believe that while using ‘Nerpa’ (named ‘Chakra’ by the Indian navy), the Indians have no clue about it. Moreover, they build their nuclear submarines with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), such as, for instance, the INS ‘Arihant’ type with missiles K-15 ‘Sagarika’. Therefore one shouldn't completely rule out the Russian-Indian partnership in the field of submarines.”

...Between Russia and India, there is an agreement on military-technical cooperation. Our countries have a wealth of experience in joint development of arms and military equipment, for example, the anti-ship missiles ‘BrahMos’. India seeks to build its Navy independently without purchasing ready ships from other countries. Russia is rich in technologies, so the desire of India to establish a joint venture with Russia for the construction of nuclear-powered ships and surface ships of the latest projects is only natural,” Sivkov said.

....India is our long-standing and trusted partner for many decades in the field of military-technical cooperation. Strengthening of India in the region fully meets our strategic interests, as the Indian Navy will be a counterweight to the Navy of the US,” Sivkov said. “India itself is building strategic submarines with SLBMs. However, their missiles, K-15 ‘Sagarika’, appear to have a relatively small effective range - from 750 to 1,500 kilometres. But that's for now...”
...
....“Russia is ready to cooperate with India in other “sensitive” areas, for example, to create a system of aerospace defence. This would include a powerful radar for over-the-horizon target detection and missile warning, appropriate firepower target-hitting devices, including anti-aircraft missile systems of long-range, and then linking all this with the automated information processing complexes.”

“Accordingly, cooperation with India can be carried out in other areas of the complex defence programs of short and medium range. Israel has become very active in the Indian market now, offering a variety of joint programs in the field of air and missile defence, but this is an area in which Russia is not only on par with the United States, but above,” Korotchenko said.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/05/21 ... 43251.html
India keen to build frigates jointly with Russia
May 21, 2015 RIA Novosti

The Indian government has expressed interest in jointly building frigates with Russia, with the proviso that they be built in India. The Indian Prime Minister has laid emphasis on increasingly producing defence equipment in India, under the government’s ‘Make in India’ programme, with joint collaboration.

Xcpt:

the Indian Defence Ministry mentioned that their Navy needed another three or four ships of this class. Now they are planning to produce such ships at home, of course, with our participation and under our patronage,” Shumakov said.

Shumakov said the frigates to be built in India would be armed with more sophisticated weapons than the ones carried by the existing ships of the project.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2015 18:14

The imminent threat to India,China's expanding maritime ambitions,spelt out officially now.
The urgent modernization and expansion of the IN needs to be fast-tracked especially acquiring more subs.both conventional and nuclear asap. In addition,supersonic LRMP aircraft like Backfires/Blackjacks also need to be evaluated,apart from consolidating and renovating our existing LRMP assets with LR missiles like BMos and Nirbhay.Apart from the IN's needs,the other two services also have their critical pending issues for which some more urgent decisions have to be taken.The IA needs to have its full Mountain Strike Corps plan revived,now halted due to alleged lack of funds.A good beginning has been made in defence decision making,but it calls for a much enhanced defence budget to merely acquire enough milware and capability to halt China,not defeat it.

China Unveils Plans for Greater Naval Role Beyond Its Coasts.
May 26, 2015
China Presents New Military White Paper

China set out its ambitions for a bigger naval presence far from its coasts, amid wariness among its neighbors over whether the country’s fleet will be used to back up its territorial claims.

The People’s Liberation Army will add “open seas protection” to “offshore waters defense” on a list of core naval missions, according to the country’s 2015 defense white paper. China must expand on its “active defense strategy” to meet the demands of a new historical era.

“The maritime battlefield has been broadened, and China’s navy needs to react to protect its rights globally,” Wang Jin, a PLA senior colonel, said at a briefing in Beijing on Tuesday.

China’s increased naval might, as well as its assertion to territory in the contested South China Sea and East China Sea, has helped spur the region’s largest military build-up in decades. It has shown a greater willingness to project power far from its coasts, evacuating workers from Yemen and joining Russia for naval exercises in the Mediterranean.

The release of the white paper came as the official Xinhua news agency reported that China has started construction of two large lighthouses on reefs in the South China Sea. The lighthouses will provide navigation services for ships from different countries, Xinhua said, citing the transport ministry.

“This posture reflects China’s rising reliance on the oceans for its economic prosperity,” said Zhang Baohui, director of the Center for Asian Pacific Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. “However, it has also intensified the security dilemma with other countries, such as the U.S., Japan and India, who distrust China’s maritime agenda.”

Chinese Dream

The paper -- entitled “China’s Military Strategy” -- sets out how the armed forces will contribute to President Xi Jinping’s plan to rejuvenate the nation and what he calls the “Chinese dream.” The most recent white paper, published in 2013, focused on the organization of the various arms of China’s military.

The Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military, released earlier this month, warned that rapid military modernization “has the potential to reduce core U.S. military technological advantages.” Absent from China’s nearly 9,000-word paper were details about how its military budget was divided among the various services.

The document underscored “the principles of defense, self-defense and post-emptive strike,” saying: “We will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counter attack if attacked.” The armed forces will intensify participation in international peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, the paper said.

Active Military

“The scope, distance and the ability to project power have all grown,” said Ni Lexiong, director of the Sea Power and Defense Policy Research Institute at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law. “The paper highlights the ‘active’ element in China’s existing military strategy, and and it’s best manifested in its navy.”

The document noted new threats of “hegemonism, power politics and neo-interventionism” in a region where the U.S. and others have sought to test China’s control of airspace and waters around islands and reefs. The U.S. last week flew a P8-A surveillance aircraft near the Spratly islands in the South China Sea, where China is building islands. The flight elicited warnings from the Chinese navy to leave.

“Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs; a tiny few maintain a constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China,” the white paper said. “It is thus a long-standing task for China to safeguard its maritime rights and interests.”

Cyberspace, Nuclear

While the risk of a global war is unlikely the paper noted the threat of local conflicts, stemming from things like ethnic and religious strife. “International competition for the redistribution of power, rights and interests is tending to intensify.”

The military plans to hasten development of four “critical security domains” - the ocean, outer space, cyberspace and its nuclear force, it said.

“Long range, precise, smart, stealthy, and unmanned weapons and equipment are becoming increasingly sophisticated,” the paper said. “The form of war is accelerating its evolution to informatioinization.”

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 26 May 2015 22:57

Philip wrote:The IN's own public assessment of the HSL Kilo refit fiasco should also be read (Posted earlier) ,where it firmly puts the blame on HSL and not Russia. Secondly,who is to refute the Russian assessment that the sub needed the required plate replacements? Did the IN protest about this? If it did and is on record,then it would be a different matter.

The Shukla report appears to be another attempt by an incompetent DPSU to shift the blame onto another OEM to obfuscate its own incompetence. The same "blame game" has gone on with another DPSU over the JV with Israel for the naval/LR-SAM,Barak-8 and its 3 year delay. The French were also blamed by MDL /MOD for the Scorpene delay,5 years,plus the huge cost increases.

The exorbitant cost of MDL built Scorpenes,without AIP one might add,even smaller than our Kilos,without BMos type missiles,is almost as expensive as an N-sub. Unless further Scorpenes with AIP come within reasonable cost,It would be far better to accelerate building our own SSN/SSGNs of approx. 6,000t mentioned, in a parallel line with the SSBNs. If the GOI can take a quick decision on the P-75I programme and choose swiftly the collaborator and yard to build them,then building work on these subs can start even before the last Scorpenes are inducted into the IN.
The alternative as mentioned above in a post,is to acquire ready Amurs on lease/bought ,or a few new Kilos,but I think that the upgrade/refit of existing Kilos has been found adequate by the IN,who want newer subs.The return of the SKirti,thought doomed earlier,is a shot in the arm for the IN.

One only wished that given the inordinate delay in the refit,this Kilo sub could've had an additional plug with VLS silos to be able to launch the sub-variant of the BMos missile,already tested successfully,but lacking a sub for it to be installed.Such a BMos armed Kilo class sub could've been touted by the Indo-Russian BMos JV for export as well,with definite interest from nations like Vietnam,etc,who already operate Kilos,who would also facec no objection for the sale of BMos from both Russia and India.

In any case the second Akula acquisition should be a certainty and one would advocate acquiring at least two more,so that a sqd. of 4 Akula-2 SSGNs will be in service by 2020,at least one SSGN for the same number of SSBNs built at Vizag.This will also make it easier to support the sqd. of Akulas ,spares,maintenance,crews,tarining ,etc. common,bringing down both acquisition and operating costs.

I agree with you on this one. In Indian DPSU's its largely about blame game, when their own house is in disarray. Same happened in the case of hawk as well. col shukla seems to have some patrons in uncle sam's office - he also advocated F-35 instead of Rafale.

John · Post by **John** » 26 May 2015 23:21

This all goes back to lack of leadership and responsibility Just like every other topic (Arjun, IJT, LUH etc) We can all go back and forth blame it on Russia, HSL, import lobby, conspiracy etc.

But at end of day unless companies/agencies whether domestic or foreign are held responsible and Ministry of Defense & Navy exercise leadership when it comes to their procurement. Rather than closing its eyes and hoping for the best. Nothing is going to change.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 May 2015 15:38

In ,one of the posts,the one about the Tata-Airbus JV for the LTA,there is quoted the famous story was mentioned about a Def. Sec.who boasted that during his tenure he never signed a single deal!

Our babus like cancer have since Independence spread their influence in ever increasing spirals,controlling the entire system like a super-computer,downgrading the importance of the chiefs and armed forces,making it almost impossible for their voice to be heard directly by the PM,as was the case when Mrs. G. was PM.The DPSUs instead of being synergized with the services are ususally at war with them,barring the IN,who long ago went their own way paying them rich dividends in the process,but even here the "rite of delay" thanks to babudom has cast its long reach and shadow (DM's recent call for warship production time to be compressed).

There have been enough articles,etc.,from retd. chiefs,admirals galore about what has to be done to revamp the entire warship building industry,but it is for the GOI as chief stakeholder to set matters right.Otherwise we will all be uselessly for years debating until our lights go out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 17:30

Sohamn wrote:I think Col. Shukla should probably start limiting his comments to army news only. His memory no longer serves him well.

He is articulating utter crap because of the following
a) He has forgotten that HSL has got in principal approval to build 2 amphibious vessels ( mistral / juan carlos etc ) no matter which private shipyard wins the competition.
b) HSL has got the order to build the OSS ships ( 2 in number )
c) HSL has got order to build midget submarines
d) Supporting govt shipyards eternally should stop and they should be competing with the private shipyard. I don't think most of the private shipyard has a order book greater than HSL.
e) Shukla seems to have political angles/motives lately in most of his posts.

You haven't addressed any of Shukla's points apart from calling him names. Perhaps you should focus on what he is saying instead of just saying its crap and assuming that serves the purpose.

Lets take a look at what he says again:

If Russia’s aim was to scuttle further refit orders to HSL, that has been achieved. In October the defence ministry cleared a Rs 4,800 crore refit for six submarines, with two each being refitted in Zvezdochka; in Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai; and in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.

HSL will have to remain content with building two midget submarines, an order worth Rs 2,000 crore that the ministry cleared in February. Known as “strategic operations vessels” or SOVs, these small vessels ferry naval commandoes to enemy coastlines.

So, HSL lost the order for 2 subs refit that is now being done at Zvezdochka effectively ruling out HSL as a possible competitor. Why? Clearly because this refit was delayed.

Where is the capability to ensure the same stunt is not pulled again at the other 2 Indian yards to ensure some orders end up being offloaded back to Russia?

Midget subs are mentioned by Shukla himself. Amphibious ships are besides the point.

Private shipyards etc are besides the point. If a particular shipyard builds up expertise in a particular area - replicating it merely because of public-private is pointless. There are ample opportunities in large ships etc which can go to private yards.

Shukla's political proclivities are well known - pro INC, rabid BJP baiter, member of Track-2, so called supporter of the Gripen etc.

However, he is also the one who exposed the T-90 farce, the manner in which the Russians have been cheating us on various other deals & on this occasion too, he has the facts on his hand (unless somebody can explain why exactly the Russians pulled so many stunts on this one submarine & the reports speak for themselves.

HSL is led by a Navy guy and the data that Shukla got was clearly from those folks.

So again, where are the facts to refute what Shukla has said, irrespective of whether he prefers a Gandhi to a Modi or whatever. He brought this up before in the INC era itself. There is no French or American yard in competition so even that's ruled out.

As regards DPSUs engaging in blame game whatever, there is ample evidence now to suggest that some Russian firms are as crooked as can be and deliberately subvert Indian national security aims to fulfill their own objectives. I don't expect anything rational from the likes of Phillip. He'll support Russia over India anyday, but the reality speaks for itself.

Examples include:

1. UAZ deliberately withholding armor and gun barrel TOT to India to ensure they got more T-90 orders
2. MiG corp deliberately withholding agreed upon engine TOT to India to ensure more orders back to their plants
3. Smerch and other deals likewise

There is ample evidence to note that even in the Su-30 deal we saw the same pattern repeat. CAG notes - and this is not CAG editorializing as with the LCA but simple straightforward data audit - that Russia did not deliver jigs and tooling on time (upto 36 months delay) delaying local indigenization. This could have been mere lack of preparation. However, in the previous cases, especially the T-90 and MiG-29 deals, we have seen deliberate mendacity.

So the HSL deal can be likewise because there is ample evidence elsewhere to suggest a similar pattern. If Shukla brings this up, more power to him.

High time we stopped being ripped off by anyone, including the Russians.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 May 2015 19:32

Also, our INVAR deal:

A dispute with Russia over technology transfer for the Invar anti-tank missile has prompted India’s Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL) to contact domestic companies to help develop the missile’s critical guidance electronics.

The Russians refused to give India the technology for the guidance system for the missile, which will be fired from India’s Russian-made T-90 tanks, despite agreeing to the transfer for licensed production of the missiles, according to a BDL official. Link

If the Russians promise to transfer tech to secure a contract and then refuse to do so (on whatever pretext) down the line, the MoD can't do squat about it, and they know it. They could simply go ahead and send over a truckful of documents printed in Cyrillic and we'd have no option but to import components directly, or spent a year or two translating them.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 27 May 2015 19:39

Karan, you have a point about Russians screwing up indigenous capabilities for many projects.

However, in this case, I feel Ajai's report doesn't cover all the sides of the story.

1. Before Sindhukirti, HSL took 10 years to refit Foxtrot-class Vela and Vagli submarines. The report here throws more light:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Navy ... 20342.html

It took the naval dockyard Vizag and HSL nearly a decade each to refit the INS Vela and the INS Vagli, the last surviving pair of Soviet-supplied Foxtrot class submarines acquired in the mid-1970s, which means the two submarines have already spent a third of their lives in medium refits.

Despite objections from a section of the navy which questioned the yard's competence, the Sindhukirti was transferred to the HSL in 2004. The reason given was to develop refit capability within the country to service future submarines.

2. A reason given for slow refit by HSL in case of Sindhukirti in the same report is less manpower used at HSL.

It took the Russian shipyard between 24 and 28 months to refit each Kilo class submarine while it takes an Indian shipyard nearly a decade to complete the same refit. A Russian shipyard deploys over 200 workers in three shifts to complete the refit in two years while HSL-a yard for building commercial ships and with little experience in refitting submarines-deploys just 50 workers.

It's not clear is HSL had one or more shifts, but even if we assume three shifts - the available manpower is 1/4th of a Russian shipyard. Add to that the additional equipment installed (A MCA inertial navigation suite, a Palady nerve system, and a Pirit ship control console, USHUS sonar, comm suite etc) versus the Russian refit and that would just be additional work.

3. Ajai mentions that 13x work in hull replaying was done and then insinuates that it was unnecessary. Well, why doesn't he have a Navy official confirm the same? Even an anonymous quote would've helped, but here we just have HSL's opinion. Where was the Naval on-site team? And why doesn't HSL have the bare minimum capability to test each hull plate and interpret the results itself? After all HSL has done a decade Long medium refit for INS Vagli and two of Egyptian Navy's subs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2015 19:52

Viv S wrote:Also, our INVAR deal:

...........................................

If the Russians promise to transfer tech to secure a contract and then refuse to do so (on whatever pretext) down the line, the MoD can't do squat about it, and they know it. They could simply go ahead and send over a truckful of documents printed in Cyrillic and we'd have no option but to import components directly, or spent a year or two translating them.

It seems like Indians have overcome this issue in the FGFA, where (if I read it right) India has proposed to build two prototypes - one by the Russians and the other by the Indians. Given that both machines need to be exact copies, there is really not much room for the Russians to play this old game of bait and switch.