Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2016 10:19

China definitely built a SSK comparable to Kilo class if not the most modern Kilo type

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2016 11:08

Still a 35 year gap between a basic SSN and a decent ssk.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 04 Apr 2016 11:19

Singha wrote:thats the best route. bury the P75I. focus all domestic efforts on N-subs. per tsarkar sir it is actually easier to build n-subs of 6000t+ (if we have the a working reactor) as its more roomy and all equipment does not need to be bleeding edge and very compact as in a small SSK.

Singha sir, I think the limiting factor is the steady supply of fuel for N subs. Even with the new plant at Chitradurga, it will be streched to meet fuel requirements of growing number of subs in the N fleet. IMO, we should not bury the p75I programme, but use the experience to develop an indigenous ssk, that is best in class but low in unit cost. In the longer run, it would be cost effective to have our seas crawling with such ssks while the ssbns lurk safely in that area. Use the expensive ssns to secure vast areas of IOR, or do long range missions near Vietnam etc. JMT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2016 12:47

Point taken we need reactor r&d to improve the length between refueling cycles as that's a multi year job with hull cutting

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Apr 2016 20:25

^^On the HEU availability, can we map the estimate of our supplies for HEU say at 40% enrichment - needed for the Arihant design and see what is the level of stock India has and will need as it gets the three SSBN's and six SSN's operational. But I suspect the enrichment levels will at least double for the SSN design.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Apr 2016 21:32

The Phil navy tender does not require ssms to be preinstalled on the frigate. I read their requirements a while back and kamorta is a Direct fit.

Bheeshma wrote:
Aditya G wrote:GRSE has emerged as L1 in Phillipines navy frigate tender
While reading on the net and looking at the specs, PN needs the ships to come at under $200 mil each. I doubt GRSE can offer Kamortas with Brahmos for that price. Not to mention IN and RuN will veto the brahmos sale to a known american ally. Something like Saryu class with AsHM added(uran or harpoon) would be ideal with 8-16 barak-1.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 04 Apr 2016 22:56

The kamorta cost IN between 220-250 mil each. I am not sure they can build it for PhN for 200 mil each. Of course PhN specs are pretty basic but lets see.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2016 11:50

There is an Ru FFG of 2200t+ which carries an ASW helo in a hangar,plus Kalibir missiles,SAMs,gatlings,etc. Our Kamorta is about 25% larger.With so many islands in the archipelago and channels between them,the PN would require a greater number of vessels preferable to a larger more capable blue-water FFG. The RuN is using its Buyan class 1000t corvettes in the Meditt. It could ideally have a mix of 2000t+ FFGs and 1000t+ corvettes ,with a few FFGs Talwar/4000t+ size for ops in the Indo-China Sea and pacific waters.It would be interesting to see what the design is.

John · Post by **John** » 06 Apr 2016 00:01

Phillipines' navy has limited budget what you are proposing will cost lot more. And also enjoy a close relationship with US and primarily looking to fit us made weaponry on these vessels.

Also they are looking for good endurance, Buyan class was not designed for patrol.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 06 Apr 2016 04:12

Required range is 4000 nm , Buyan-M won't cut it. The Kamorta itself has 3500 nm range while saryu has 6000 nm.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Apr 2016 08:12

This two part video gives a good prespective how ASW war is fought between an old Kilo Submarine and a modern corvette

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsXDoBt-Tvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlCkKCMfEc

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 07 Apr 2016 18:32

---Not confirmed news---

Equipment damage reported on INS Sindhughosh in an accident near/in Mumbai

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Apr 2016 23:52

Defexpo brochure uploaded by Prasun Sengupta.

First look at GSL MCMV. Not sure if this is a notional concept or the final design based on Hyundai's inputs.

Aside from the hull the main feature is the AUV and ROV for mine detection and disposal. Who is supplying that?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q7vmZxFRF7A/ ... MCMV-1.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YrnVQ_ukzBU/ ... MCMV-2.jpg

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Apr 2016 00:04

India is the largest user of Minesweeping Systems from Thales Australia that has been used to upgrade the Konkan class. These are best in class.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... 29_web.pdf

We already use Kongsberg HUGIN AUVs for many years

http://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokb ... enDocument

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Apr 2016 01:32

thank you tsarkarji.

Last year when we lost one TRV, the prototype Varunastra torp was also lost. It was later recovered with help from by a NIOT ship which had ROVs. Then later on a Reliance ship helped us to locate the ICG Dornier wreckage. From this I deduce a shortage of ROVs, or at least a shortage of survey ships. Not surprising as Alcock never delivered 5/6 of Makars.

On an unrelated note, who makes the diving bells deployed from INS Neereekshak?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Apr 2016 06:37

http://m.imgur.com/w8EUzGb?r

L&t might be production agency of DRDO aip

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Apr 2016 11:14

The CG must in future also be trained in MCM ops as during wartime they will be responsible for sanitising the inner coastal zone leaving the IN to get on with destroying the enemy.Having the CG also capable of MCM duties will ease the burden on the IN for the same.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Apr 2016 11:43

Singha wrote:http://m.imgur.com/w8EUzGb?r

L&t might be production agency of DRDO aip

270KW? Is that right?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Apr 2016 11:47

It does, apparently!

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/under ... ulsion.htm

Pakistan's three new Agosta 90B submarines, which will each be fitted with a 200 kilowatt MESMA system

...212-class submarines. These will consist of nine PEM fuel-cell modules each nominally rated at 34 kilowatts, to yield a total of approximately 300 kilowatts (400 horsepower).

Siemens is working on a next-generation PEM module rated at 120 kilowatts, and two of these will be incorporated into HDW's 1,860-ton U 214 boats

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:02

Finally Sindhukirti major upgrade is completed in Vishakapatanam

Russian Zvyozdochka Shipyard Repaired and Upgraded INS Sindhukirti SSK in India

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... india.html

Russian Zvyozdochka shipyard has repaired and upgraded Indian Navy`s Sindhukirti diesel-electric submarine (SSK) at the dockyard in Vishakhapatnam (India), according to the company`s press department.

The modernisation of Sindhukirti was the first case of Russian submarine deep upgrade at Indian dockyard by Russian shipbuilding company, a Zvyozdochka`s official said. The related works were being done for approximately ten years, the official mentioned.

As a result of the modernisation, Sindhukirti has been rearmed with Club-S missile system, obtained the capability to destroy surface targets, while being submerged and turned into modern multi-role submarine. The Sindukirti`s motion control and automated information-management systems have also been enhanced, the official said.

The Zvyozdochka shipyard, which makes a specialty out of upgrade and utilization of nuclear-powered submarines, has upgraded five Indian Navy`s SSKs, namely, Sinduvir, Sinduratna, Sindugosh, Sinduvidzhai and Sindurakshak Project 877EKM (NATO reporting name: Kilo-class) submarines. The upgrade of the sixth Indian submarine, namely, Sindukesari (Project 877EKM) by Zvyozdochka is scheduled for Summer 2016. During the modernisation process, the submarines receive Club-S missile system (the export modification of Russian Kalibr missile system).-

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/76171/

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2016 17:18

Russian Zvyozdochka shipyard has repaired and upgraded Indian Navy`s Sindhukirti diesel-electric submarine (SSK) at the dockyard in Vishakhapatnam (India), according to the company`s press department.

The modernisation of Sindhukirti was the first case of Russian submarine deep upgrade at Indian dockyard by Russian shipbuilding company, a Zvyozdochka`s official said.

Wait what?!! The Zvoyozdochka now claims credit for the Sindhukirti ~~saga~~ upgrade.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Apr 2016 17:41

Viv S wrote: Wait what?!! The Zvoyozdochka now claims credit for the Sindhukirti ~~saga~~ upgrade.

Well most certainly they would have supervised the entire thing after the folks in HSL disassembled an operational Sub and didnt knew what to do after that post that they had to involve the OEM and lot of what parts of upgrade comes from the OEM so they would be there to integrate it.

A major upgrade of Kilo takes about 2 Years at OEM yard but they took just 10 years !

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Apr 2016 19:17

Austin wrote:Well most certainly they would have supervised the entire thing after the folks in HSL disassembled an operational Sub and didnt knew what to do after that post that they had to involve the OEM and lot of what parts of upgrade comes from the OEM so they would be there to integrate it.

A major upgrade of Kilo takes about 2 Years at OEM yard but they took just 10 years !

That is entirely wrong. The OEM was contracted to supervise the entire refit from get go, including the 'disassembly' which happened under their direction. Contrary to what you claim, the OEM was not called in after-the-fact.

Russia delayed sub refit to weaken shipyard?

For over eight years, as Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL), Visakhapatnam, has struggled to overhaul one of the navy's Kilo-class submarines - INS Sindhukirti - critics have flayed the shipyard for depriving the navy of a critical warship. HSL has never publicly explained the delay.

Yet, Business Standard found, during a detailed tour of HSL, that the delay has little to do with inefficiency or incompetence. Instead, much of the blame rests with a loosely framed contract with Moscow that has allowed Russian "experts" to incrementally extend the work to be done on the Sindhukirti, in one case to 13 times what was required for overhauling an Indian submarine in Russia.

The Russians who have worked at HSL since 2006, overseeing Sindhukirti's "modernisation-cum-refit" knew they were assisting a competitor. HSL's success would disrupt the lucrative flow of Indian submarines to Zvezdochka shipyard in Russia, which had long overhauled them for hundreds of crore rupees each.

"INS Sindhukirti will complete its refit by March 31, when it will rejoin the navy fleet. But the experience of overhauling this submarine holds major lessons for Indian shipyards," says HSL chairman, Rear Admiral N K Mishra (retired).

An overhaul, or refit, conducted every 10 to 15 years, extends a submarine's life by repairing its hull and modernising its combat capability. It involves examining, repairing and even replacing parts of the hull (two hulls in the Kilo-class, an inner "pressure hull" and an outer hull); replacing worn-out cabling; and replacing or upgrading major weapons, sensors and communication systems.

Business Standard has compared the work that Russian "experts" at HSL ordered on the Sindhukirti, with that done on two submarines earlier - INS Sindhughosh, refitted in Russia; and INS Sindhudhvaj, refitted in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam (see chart). In each work category, the Sindhukirti has required several times the work done on the Sindhughosh and Sindhudhvaj.

Tellingly, this was not anticipated in the preliminary work estimation, which was in line with earlier refit experiences. Shipyard workers recount (and the figures endorse) that the work only ballooned after it began, with Russian overseers repeatedly ordering work extensions.

The "pressure hull build up" - in which pits on the hull surface are filled with metal -doubled. So did the "frame renewal", or replacement of the metal framework that supports the hull. The grinding work expanded almost threefold. The time-consuming and costly work of replacing entire hull plates went up 13-fold from what the Sindhughosh required in Russia. The conning tower, which was only repaired in earlier refits, had to be entirely rebuilt.

There are only two possible explanations: Either INS Sindhukirti, which the navy operated exactly like its other Kilo-class submarines, inexplicably underwent exceptional wear and tear; or else Russian experts ordered needless work extensions, for their own reasons. Senior navy officials say the former is unlikely.

"When Russia overhauls a submarine, the work package is frozen at the time the contract is signed. But we had no experience of framing a contract. We allowed the Russians to indefinitely increase the work required, which kept expanding," recounts Commodore Ashok Bhal (retired), director of the Sindhukirti refit.

Navy gets INS Sindhukirti back, after nine-year wait

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.

Medium Refit cum Upgradation of INS Sindhukirti - CAG Report

(a) Contracts between HSL and ROE

HSL concluded (November 2003, September 2004 and October 2005) nine contracts with ROE (being Russian collaborator for the Refit) for undertaking the MR cum Upgradation of INS Sindhukirti. Out of these, one contract was concluded (October 2005) specifically for supply of materials such as steel plates, welding electrodes, pipes, cables, associated fittings and accessories, required for the MR and to be delivered between December 2006 to October 2008. However, the delivery under the contract was not completed timely by ROE, leading to delay in receipt of materials by 11 to 19 months which had a cascading effect on the commencement of major repairs in hull structure. Our examination (December 2014) of six contracts between HSL and ROE for supply of materials and services further revealed that Liquidated Damages (LD) clauses were not included in any of the contracts.

The Ministry replied (May 2015) that the issue was not relevant to the implementation of the contract between HSL and MoD. The reply of the Ministry is untenable because the scope of work for ROE was included in the MR contract between ND(V) and HSL and hence linked to completion of the MR. Therefore, the Ministry cannot abdicate its overall responsibility of ensuring the inclusion of standard contractual clauses in ROE contracts.

Thus, lack of LD clauses prevented remedial action against ROE despite delayed deliveries which had affected the overall progress of refit.

(b) Lack of due diligence while using indigenous electrodes in the MR

The contract for MR of Sindhukirti did not contain a provision for usage of indigenous electrodes and was formulated based on Russian methodology which catered for overall repair and refit of submarine as per Russian Technical Documents (RTDs) which do not cater for use of Indian equipment. However, when the electrodes contracted from ROE were substantially delayed by 19 months, HSL utilised the indigenous electrodes, UltratensalMH and Ultratherme-H, in place of 48N1 and 48N11 electrodes authorised under RTDs. The Russians raised (May 2009) objections to the use of indigenous electrodes.

Eastern Naval Command intimated(June 2012) to IHQ, MoD(Navy) that the Russians expressed their inability to depute representatives for Sea Acceptance Trials (SATs) of the submarine, till the issue of electrodes was resolved. Further IHQ MoD (N) intimated to HSL (June 2013) that issue of use of indigenous electrodes has been a point of contention with the Russians in all Indo Russian Inter Governmental Committee (IRIGC) meetings, wherein in the 13th IRIGC meeting they have demanded a separate contract for certification of indigenous electrodes.

In response to our query (October 2014) about electrodes, ND (V) stated (November 2014) that IHQ MoD (N) had approved (March 1995) the usage of indigenous electrodes Ultratensal-MH and Ultratherme-H in lieu of imported electrodes 48N1 and 48N11. IHQ MoD (N) had also stated (June 2012) that indigenous electrodes were used for hull repairs on board EKM class submarines during previous refits at ND (V) and ND (MB) prior to MR at Russia.

We observed (November 2014) that non-consideration of the usage of indigenous material at the contract stage and resorting to their utilisation only after delay in supplies by ROE and without obtaining specific approval from ROE, indicated lack of due diligence by the Navy.

The Ministry admitted (May 2015) that objection of the Russians created hurdles in progress of refit.

Resultantly, utilisation of indigenous yard materials, despite past knowledge and experience of their use in refits of other EKM submarines, could not be sufficiently ensured in the refit effort.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Apr 2016 01:47

ICG doing mine hunting duties: that is an interesting idea. I wonder if it is possible without the specialist hull type, training and advanced equipment which seems to be the standard nowadays.

ICG should definitely take up some war like or war time tasks as BAU, maybe at a lower end of the spectrum compared to Navy. We need to identify that area. I think defense against divers/saboteurs should be one such area. Escort of nuclear subs while departing or coming into harbour and such.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Apr 2016 02:38

Viv s great rebuttal to the Russian Rakshak.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 09 Apr 2016 06:01

ships-and-shipbuilding-in-india-through-a-sino-indian-prism

Much promise was initially held out by the indigenous ‘Advanced Light Helicopter’ (ALH) Dhruv. However, the technological challenges of folding rotor-blades and minimising the downwash while the helicopter is in hover continue to frustrate efforts to embed this helicopter within the integral-air capacity of the Indian Navy

I thought this was solved recently

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Apr 2016 15:02

AG,we have a huge shortage of dedicated MCM vessels.We used to have a few decades ago around 20.
In recent times,there have been major developments in MCM ops,with US style helo sweeping,UUVs for detection and detstruction,etc. Modular MCM eqpt. that could be fitted to our CG OPVs and other suitable CG vessels,IN's survey ships,etc.,would in a wartime scenario add to MCM assets.

If the CG is trained for MCM ops ,and also limited ASW warfare,it would be a great asset to the IN,since the CG is under IN control during wartime. Multi-puprpose catamaran hulled vessels with a wide stern.after deck would be ideal platforms,as they could house MCM eqpt. easily.In fact,such CG MP vessels should be designed from scratch for inclusion of MCM and other ASW weaponry light lightweight TTs,MANPADS,etc. during a crisis. These modules could be safely stored at major naval bases for the rapid fitment when needed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Apr 2016 16:51

Why I've been advocating a third tier for anti-missile defence. We lost this with the small numbers of B-8s aboard the Kol DDG class,which are supposed to also deter incomiung anto-ship missiles at short ranges.A waste in my opinion as these missiles cost a bomb. The DDGs thus do not have the numbers required to ward off massed missile attacks and do require another SR SAM.Why the same seeker,etc. cannot be installed in extra B-1type SAMs beats me. See what the US is doing to attempt to counter Russian SSMs. China has several anti-ship missiles ,both sub-sonic and supersonic,of both indigenous and Russian clones.Some of our principal surface combatants are underarmed.

http://www.stripes.com/news/russian-mis ... s-1.403477

Russian missiles prompt Navy to look at ships’ close-in defenses

Sailors aboard USS Porter transport the forward union jack mast as the ship gets underway from Rota, Spain, March 16, 2016. Earlier this year, engineers working aboard the Spain-based Arleigh Burke-class destroyer installed a missile-launcher that can autonomously track and destroy incoming anti-ship missiles. Robert S. Price/U.S. Navy

By Steven Beardsley
Stars and Stripes

Published: April 8, 2016
NAPLES, Italy — The addition of a new weapon on a warship already bristling with advanced systems might not seem like a big deal for the U.S. Navy in Europe.

But when engineers working aboard the Spain-based destroyer USS Porter installed a missile-launcher that can autonomously track and destroy incoming anti-ship missiles earlier this year, it was an acknowledgment of a shift in this theater: For the first time in post-Cold War Europe, the Navy must account for an adversary capable of threatening its ships with modern weapons — Russia.

The Naples-based U.S. 6th Fleet made an urgent request last year to acquire the missile-launcher, the SeaRAM Close-In Weapon System, for installation on the Porter and three other destroyers based in Rota, Spain. Their concern is the advanced anti-ship cruise missiles being installed by Russia on its surface ships, aircraft, submarines and coastal defense sites.

Still modernizing from its post-Soviet disrepair, the Russian fleet lacks the blue-water capability of the U.S. Navy. But by raising the stakes of confrontation with one of its ships, aircraft or submarines, it can try to alter the Navy’s behavior in contested waters like the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.

The Russian navy is in the middle of an ambitious shipbuilding program that includes a new guided-missile corvette and two new classes of guided-missile frigates. It has already stationed the first two of a planned six new ultra-quiet diesel Kilo-class submarines in the Black Sea, one of which fired land-attack cruise missiles at Syrian rebel targets from the Eastern Mediterranean last year.

“That sort of got people’s attention, as was precisely the intent,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, a naval analyst at CNA Corp.

The military calls this strategy Anti-Access, Area Denial, or A2/AD, in which the presence of long-range precision-guided missiles forces an adversary to operate further from shore or regional waters. The Navy considers it a challenge to freedom of navigation and its ability to project power from the sea.

The Pentagon first mentioned A2/AD several years ago to describe China’s fielding of large quantities of anti-ship missiles near sensitive areas. Yet recent tensions in Europe, with Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula in 2014 and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine have made it relevant to U.S. forces here.

A 2015 Office of Naval Intelligence report said the emphasis on missiles in Russia’s new shipbuilding — in particular the Kalibr cruise missile being installed on all new submarines, corvettes, frigates and larger surface ships — is altering security in the region.

“The proliferation of this capability within the new Russian Navy is profoundly changing its ability to deter, threaten or destroy adversary targets,” the authors of the report wrote.

Anti-ship missiles are getting faster, with longer ranges and more countermeasures designed to penetrate advanced defenses, said Mike Kofman, another analyst at CNA Corp. Submarine- or aircraft-fired anti-ship missiles have a range of 400 to 500 kilometers (250 to 300 miles), he said. This means that a ship stationed at the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, in Crimea, can put much of the Black Sea at risk. A common design is a multi-stage missile, in which the warhead boosts from the missile body to supersonic speed before striking its target.

Defending a warship against cruise missiles is difficult. Although the Aegis air defense system in American guided-missile warships is designed to handle multiple incoming missiles at one time, an enemy will still try to overwhelm it through the number and launch direction of missiles, as well as countermeasures of its own.

That puts ships in a race to add more and better defense systems before sailing into contested waters.

“You want to have freedom of navigation, freedom of movement,” said Kofman. “The only way to believe you have that is if your ships are survivable.”

Which is where the SeaRAM comes in. The Navy tries to stack, or layer, defenses on a single ship to give it overlapping solutions for stopping an incoming missile. They include the SM-6 missile at long-range, the SM-2 and Evolved Seasparrow Missile at medium range and a Phalanx 20mm cannon Close-In Weapon System as the last line of defense.

First deployed on a ship seven years ago, SeaRAM offers a close-range option that extends beyond the 20mm cannon. Navy weapons managers turned to the SeaRAM last year after 6th Fleet requested a fast-track acquisition for a new defense system for the four ships. Although it had never been installed on a destroyer, the SeaRAM mount was similar enough to the cannon mount that engineers could swap the two on the ship’s aft, with some modifications.

A successful test fire last month capped the installation. It also proved how quickly the Navy could respond to an urgent request from fleet commanders — programmers needed just one year for a process that can take as long as five.

“We learned a lot of lessons about how we could do things faster,” said Capt. Mike Ladner, a program manager at Naval Sea Systems Command who oversees weapon systems for surface ships.

It may not be the last such request as the U.S. continues to look at defending its ships against cruise missiles, a threat only expected to grow in the future. Hypersonic missiles — those that can travel at over Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound — are a likely goal of Russian missile researchers, according to the Office of Naval Intelligence.

The Navy will seek to counter them at every step, Kofman said.

“This is a problem people are very much working hard on,” he said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2016 18:21

A two part documentary on INS ShidhuKirti in Hindi this is post modernised kilo so it has all bell and whistle , Whats interesting is the number of torpedoes mentioned by weapons officer is 20 torpedoes ( at 11:35 in Part 1 video ) which compared to original kilo info on Janes/Opensource etc is 18 , So they managed to add two more torpedoes post modernisation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2016 22:54

Another video on INS Sindhukirti by IT , got better look at the upgraded Combat Room here , interesting he says India Kilo normally carry a crew of 70 people compared to the 50 that is the normal crew for it , must be one crowed place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh9WS9C72Hg

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 10 Apr 2016 00:11

ICG seems reluctant to take on more 'heavy weight' tasks .... case in point. The new Samarth class OPVs are the largest ever in ICG history, and based on the Saryu class. They did not even mount a CRN-91 cannon, let alone a Oto 76mm. ICG is content with manually trained L70. ICG is very large now, and they better step forward with military tasks so that IN can focus on missions farther out.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Apr 2016 18:25

Andaman islands get first missile Corvette.

The Andaman and Nicobar islands today got their first missile Corvette ship as INS Karmuk arrived at Port Blair after being re-based from the Eastern Naval Command in Visakhapatnam.

"This is the first time in the history of Andaman & Nicobar islands that a missile corvette is being based. This is a concrete step towards realising the Indian Navys perspective plans of transforming Port Blair into a strategic maritime naval base," a Defence official said.

INS Karmuk, a guided missile Corvette of the Kora class, would not only significantly enhance the off-shore surveillance and maritime patrolling around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but its long-range surface-to-surface missiles would tremendously enhance the defence of A&N islands.

Commissioned in 2004, INS Karmuk is commanded by Cdr Akash Chaturvedi. The ship has a complement of 14 officers and 130 sailors. It is equipped with state-of-the-art navigation, communication and radar systems and boasts of contemporary surface-to-surface missiles, a main gun and secondary armament.

With the ability to carry a helicopter, INS Karmuk has the capability to operate well beyond the traditional maritime boundaries of the Andaman and Nicobar Command.

The ship has undertaken various operations in the past, which include deployments in the South China Sea, maiden bilateral exercise with Japanese Naval forces, deployments with other foreign navies and participation in the recently concluded International Fleet Review.

The state-of-the-art ship would now add teeth to protecting Indias strategic interests and assets in the Andaman and Nicobar region.
Further, besides ocean surveillance and surface warfare operations to prevent infiltration and protect maritime sovereignty, the ship will also monitor the busy sea lanes of communication passing through the A&N Islands and other vital assets.

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 11 Apr 2016 15:52

Austin wrote:Another video on INS Sindhukirti by IT , got better look at the upgraded Combat Room here , interesting he says India Kilo normally carry a crew of 70 people compared to the 50 that is the normal crew for it , must be one crowed place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh9WS9C72Hg

Had the privilege of visiting our now oldest sub, the Sindhughosh this Saturday. The officer on duty showed us around the combat room, the torpedo room and a couple of other compartments around.

He mentioned the complement could be as high as 90 at times. Definitely crowded!

The controls/joysticks in the Sindhukirti look state of the art while the S55 had controls like you would see in the old generation aircraft.

S55 is turning 30 this 30th of April. Although she's old, she's still one fit, well maintained but dangerous lady. Going down the hatch was one of the proudest moment of my life.

P.S: saw the new Kalvari class (INS Khanderi) which is almost ready. She's a mean beast

And the Shishumars are so low, in the sense that you can barely ever see anything other than the conning tower.

I might be sounding like a fanboy, but this was an exhilarating experience. Visited the Viraat later...but that's another story

maz · Post by **maz** » 11 Apr 2016 23:38

Bodhi, thanks for sharing. Did you mean to say Kalvari or Khanderi?
AFAIK, Kalvari, the first Scorpene is at naval dockyard awaiting sea trials later this month.

The EKM (Kilos) are getting old now and while Mid life Updates (MLU) help somewhat but that is merely a crutch for a bigger problem - namely, block obsolescence.
Even more problematic is the issue of the weapons - torpedoes - which are older (and more prone to failure/accidents) than they need to be. There is a need to acquire modern weapons with insensitive warheads instead of asking the navy to make do.

There was a recent Russian media blurb about the possible acquisition of 2 or more new build Pr. 636 Kilos. A new boat can be built in about the same time as it takes to perform a MLU on an older boat. This would make sense as the older EKM hulls really ought to be decommissioned along the lines of best practices in other world class navies.

Meanwhile, let us hope that the MoD approves the construction of 2 or more improved Scorpenes in a timely manner so that the MDSL P-75 production line is kept active while the MoD/IN works on down-selecting a suitable design and shipyards for P-75I. The question is how much longer will this process take?

In another development, the RuN Sub rescue ship RFS Epron is back to Russia. Which means that Arihant's commissioning is imminent.

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 12 Apr 2016 09:05

I thought the Kalvari was already out for sea trials, guess I was wrong. It definitely was the Kalvari then as it was in the waters while wiki tells me that Khanderi is yet to be launched. My apologies.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2016 09:12

bodhi that was nice update and lucky you

90 crew on kilo would make even a nuclear submarine crew envious of her

Any interesting facts or anecdotes shared about Kilo sub and its crew

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2016 12:12

how are the content of the IN meals? three meals a day? tea/coffee on demand?
is non veg food prepared in same kitchen as veg?

I have heard here IN eats the best of the three services.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2016 13:14

Funnily enough I had been down the original Foxtrot Kalvari decades ago. Also had a can of Budweiser courtesy Nav sena. Also visited the original Vikrant around that time. 70s. Didn't know enough to ask intelligent questions.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Apr 2016 17:15

Some fascinating tidbits from "down under".It appears that the much tpouted Soryu class ain't even good enough for the heavily modified Coliins class which at one time was as noisy as an "underwater rock concert". Read all about it...!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 66888ffe9b

Japanese sub is not up to Collins-class standards
The Australian|
April 12, 2016

From the limited information available, the Japanese Soryu submarine appears to be an old design, inefficient and less capable than the Collins class. It appears to be well behind the potential of the two European options for Australia’s future submarine.

The Japanese design team has worked without competition in contrast to the export-oriented French and German designers. And it shows. For example, internal video footage shows lower levels of automation, requiring larger crews.

Second, the Soryu appears to have a significantly deeper diving depth than Australia needs. This has an effect on its design and construction. For example, two different steels and a more complex hull shape are used. This complicates construction, adding to costs and maintenance.

As a result of the additional structure required for the greater depth, Soryu is heavier than Collins but has less space. Collins has 50 per cent more generating capacity; the Soryu must recharge more often and for longer, so it is less stealthy.

Soryu’s transit speed is lower giving less time on task at the long ranges we require — we would need more submarines to do the job of Collins. Its range is two-thirds that of Collins, adding fuel increases the submarine’s size, creating more drag, requiring bigger propulsion motor, batteries and generators.

Finally, it has inferior habitability, affecting crew efficiency, morale and retention. I speak as a former Oberon-class commanding officer.

What those who are so intent on forcing this marriage should understand is that Soryu is not the most capable submarine on offer. Nor would it be a simple or low risk project to correct its shortcomings.

It is almost certainly not the lowest risk option to achieve Australia’s future submarine requirements.

Peter Briggs, Mornington, Vic

Why do our defence chiefs, their advisers and commentators believe that the defence of Australia is best served by buying hugely expensive submarines and frigates to be used in forward deployment roles?

Have they not learned that air superiority always triumphs over naval operations. And forward deployment, without air superiority, leads to defeat and potential invasion.

Sadly, these vessels will be no help at all in resisting an airborne attack or invasion. Remote deployments may even result in dragging us into unnecessary disputes with neighbouring countries.

A smarter government would quickly switch to building up our air defence industries, now that the military world is on the brink of new drone, surveillance, and early warning technologies.

John B. Allen, Lindfield, NSW

Stan Yeaman (Letters, 11/4) gives us an interesting account of the British nuclear powered submarine HMS Conqueror during the Falklands War.

However, he fails to mention that a diesel-electric sub, HMS Onyx, was also deployed to the Falklands. Onyx’s main role was for covert activities such as landing Special Boat Service units.

When on operations, diesel-electric submarines use battery-powered electric motor propulsion so are very quiet, whereas the relatively noisy reactor cooling pumps in nuclear powered submarines need to run continuously so are easier to detect.

I suspect that Australia wants to use its submarines for covert activities so diesel-electric submarines may be the right choice.

Ian Davis, Bella Vista, NSW

I never thought I would agree with anything written by the Labor Party on defence, but Stephen Conroy’s piece (“Our key defence partnership needs more nurturing”, 11/4) hits the nail on the head. Australia is incapable of defending itself and needs the US alliance more than the Americans need us. That this government does not recognise Chinese expansion and the need to complete the US troop rotation agreement urgently is cause of concern.

The Defence Minister is out of her depth. Defence is more interested in political correctness than what it’s paid to do and the insistence on buying equipment that is already obsolete (conventional submarines) is all the proof we need of incompetence

Unfortunately, governments don’t trust the common sense of the Australian people or are unable to articulate the dire consequences for Australia if we don’t continue to nurture the US alliance.

Tony Miles, Chermside, Qld

PS:Let alone match our Kilo subs

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 13 Apr 2016 21:21

They shd just get upgraded LA class and be done with it.