Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 09 Jun 2017 19:06

brar_w wrote:The F-16 is a dead end platform and offers absolutely nothing to the Indian MIC.


Brar Sir, I respect your judgement and I always read yoyr posts with great interest.

In this case, I respectfully disagree. The F-16 is dead end for the US because they can build a F-35. We cannot yet.

Getting one, some or all of the F-15/16/18 lines would expand our MIC in a way that the MKI and MiG screwdrivergiri did not.

All you need to look at is SKorea. They started making F-16Ks 30 years after we began building Russki jets, yet today they are selling their T/A-50 around the world but what have we from all the hundreds of local russki planes we've built?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2017 19:12

South Korea is selling the T-50 because they have invested in it, invested in their private industry to get there. India too has done that and has a superior platform that it practically designed single handily in the LCA. What is lacking is manufacturing and economies of scale and fragmenting a single fighter engine requirement is not going to help with that. If the objective is to secure advanced production work from the prime contractor level, down to the sub then you may want to look at more modern platforms. They did look at that with the Rafale but the cost was not really something that could be accommodated.

On the F-16, it is very much a dead end platform. There will be no major overhauls, or upgrades like the ones seen when the F-16C was introduced, or later when the block 60 with digital EW, AESA radar, and newer mission computers and IR sensors was introduced. You are basically looking at a sustainment program that will make sure obsolesce issues are taken care of but beyond that it is not going to introduce any breakthrough cutting edge capability besides weapons. That is simply a fact. The MOD can obviously pull off a UAE and fund a bespoke upgrade path, but every Forex $ spent on it would take away from something.

F-18 is a different matter, since that is still expected to be 40-50% of USN's strike fighter inventory through the late 2030s and they have a vested interest to make sure that a block IV configuration is created in the 2020s following completion of the recently funded block III etc. But no such dynamics exist with the USAF. They are currently (in LRIP) buying 2 squadrons worth of F-35As a year, and are looking to increase that to 3+ in the near term. Without primary customer need the industry will simply move to supporting and investing IR&D funds on a program that is likely to generate demand and therefore an ROI.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 09 Jun 2017 19:32

^^^ Agree that we should push forward the LCA above any phoren single engine fighter.

That said, if the reasons for this tender are legitimate then getting a teen line is a good option simply because the components and processes there would be greater than anything we have now. We cannot make a more advance aircraft than the F-16 with what we have now.

The HAL not having the manufacturing and efficiency in building the LCA is something that an American teen line can fix. Seriously, after MiG-21, -27 and the MKI and we still have problems "manufacturing" means we never gotten the required TOT or good enough TOT that the Koreans got from their F-16.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2017 19:46

I don't think a teen line will fix that. If you want to build double digit advanced aircraft a year you better invest in your production base and prepare them for it. This starts with higher production rate for LCA and N-LCA, and then the AMCA and N-AMCA. That requires a direct infusion of funds, public-private partnerships etc etc. You aren't going to be able to make 30 AMCA's a year in 2030 because you are assembling F-16's. What the industrial base needs is a long term security on production volumes and this can start with the LCA.

Squadron strength issues are legitimate and may warrant a new aircraft especially since the earlier plan of buying 126 MMRCA's fell through. That is a different matter and there may be strategic aspects to it. But lets keep that seperate from rolling it in terms of indigenous capability requirements..that can and will happen only if there is a strategic vision to develop and sustain long term (1-2 decades) production for the LCA.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 09 Jun 2017 20:35

brar_w wrote:I don't think a teen line will fix that. If you want to build double digit advanced aircraft a year you better invest in your production base and prepare them for it.


But why wasn't this production base already built after decades of assembling hundreds upon hundreds of MiGs and Sukhois?

My worst fear is that we already have this vast industrial system for obsolete processes and obsolete Russian components. Remember, HAL makes 70% of the MKI. If none of this helps in building the LCA then through more funds into HAL and expanding whatever it has in place is pointless.

That is where a new F-16 line can help and revolutionize the PSUs by changing it from whatever poor processes they are currently operating with that doesn't allow us to build a home designed fighter with more efficiency.

LCA is domestically designed! It should be able to take advantage of domestic efficiencies! Unless the domestic base is so fvcked up or so Russian geared that it can't help with the LCA.
Last edited by chola on 09 Jun 2017 20:42, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2017 20:40

But why wasn't this production base already built after decades of assembling hundreds upon hundreds of MiGs and Sukhois?


You need direct investment, assured work for component suppliers and experience in managing a clean sheet (not hand me down) production process design and refinement. Getting Lockheed's Fort Worth line will not magically transform India's capability to churn out dozens of LCA's a year - Only direct, focused investment at preparing the industrial base to deliver components and injecting assured business and competition vis-a-vis the LCA will get you that.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2017 11:50

When the pvt. sector,Indian cos. to,can churn out autos at record prod. rates,one LCA line in the pvt. sector with the same support as HAL gets,would usher in direct competition.HAL would have to deliver or get fewer orders .Several pvt. entities like Tatas,etc. are already making parts for aircraft and helos for wetsern aerospace cos.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3600
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Jun 2017 22:51

chola wrote: The HAL not having the manufacturing and efficiency in building the LCA is something that an American teen line can fix. Seriously, after MiG-21, -27 and the MKI and we still have problems "manufacturing" means we never gotten the required TOT or good enough TOT that the Koreans got from their F-16.

1.how do you know they will get the required tot from the US?
2. China is today able to manufacture advanced fighters, they started with even worse Russian crap, as you like to put it, than India.
3. what makes a flanker any less advanced than a solah?
4. They have all the tot in the world with the Tejas, why are they still having manufacturing issues?

Hint.... The answers have mostly to do with appropriate investments and sops into the industry. And this is now happening with the lca. Bringing in a new fighter line won't do much if appropriate steps are not taken to develop the supply chain upstream. Which should be unlikely or very expensive with phoren fighters irrespective of where they come from.

Instead of going off on a wild goose chase with a phoren fighter, once one line of lca is established with Hal, it would be best to get another going with private players for the Tejas and ramp up its production. And if a foreign bird is deemed absolutely necessary, a relatively newer design such as the shornet or the Rafale, which will be in play with home forces for years to come, would be a better choice.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2216
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby VinodTK » 12 Jun 2017 00:06

Govt to kick-start process for Rs 60,000 crore submarine programme
NEW DELHI: The government is all set to roll out the process for the Rs 60,000-crore submarine programme, moving swiftly after unveiling a major policy for defence manufacturing in the country.
The project is set to be the first one to be launched under the ambitious 'Strategic Partnership' model finalised last month which aims to rope in leading private players for defence production.
The defence ministry is likely to issue the Expression of Interest for the project soon, to kick start the process for mega deal, official sources said.
Engineering conglomerate Larsen and Toubro and Reliance Defence are the only two defence firms eligible to participate in the P-75 I programme, said another source.
The government will subsequently initiate the process to shortlist the foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for the project based laid down norms in the strategic partnership model.
Six Scorpene-class submarines are currently being built under 'Project 75' of the Indian Navy. The submarines, designed by French naval defence and energy company DCNS, are being built by Mazagon Dock Limited in Mumbai.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 13 Jun 2017 14:18

Cain Marko wrote:
chola wrote: The HAL not having the manufacturing and efficiency in building the LCA is something that an American teen line can fix. Seriously, after MiG-21, -27 and the MKI and we still have problems "manufacturing" means we never gotten the required TOT or good enough TOT that the Koreans got from their F-16.

1.how do you know they will get the required tot from the US?
2. China is today able to manufacture advanced fighters, they started with even worse Russian crap, as you like to put it, than India.
3. what makes a flanker any less advanced than a solah?
4. They have all the tot in the world with the Tejas, why are they still having manufacturing issues?

Hint.... The answers have mostly to do with appropriate investments and sops into the industry. And this is now happening with the lca. Bringing in a new fighter line won't do much if appropriate steps are not taken to develop the supply chain upstream. Which should be unlikely or very expensive with phoren fighters irrespective of where they come from.

Instead of going off on a wild goose chase with a phoren fighter, once one line of lca is established with Hal, it would be best to get another going with private players for the Tejas and ramp up its production. And if a foreign bird is deemed absolutely necessary, a relatively newer design such as the shornet or the Rafale, which will be in play with home forces for years to come, would be a better choice.


Again, I agree that the best course of action is to stick with LCA and move the project through with orders and investments.

But if there is a good reason for the single-engined aircraft tender then trying an American production lind like the F-16 is not a bad thing. Again, look at South Korea or Japan from their building of local F-solahs. At the very least, they are left with viable eco-systems that allows them to go to the next step.

On the PRC, that is already a pet peeve of mine. Why are they able and -- from all visible signs -- allowed by the fvcking Russians to build variant after variant of the Su-27 while our MKI production is straitjacketed to the MKI alone? So comparing witn Cheen is pointless since either through strategic (anti-Unkil) or monetary reasons they are getting far better TOT terms than we are getting. What is the definition of crazy? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. From building the MiG-21 to the MKI, it has not given us a MIC that can support the LCA in numbers.

One other thing with the PRC, its joint ventures with the West are every bit as important as its Russian ones. The K-8 including 120 sold to Egypt uses a Garrett engine. Z-9, with a dozen variants and sold around the world, is a Eurocopter ToT. Their primary strike fighter, the JH-7 uses a licensed RR Spey which they were allowed to localize and improve. The Z-8/18 of which at least 4 variants can be seen on their carrier is a ToT of the Super Frelon.

In any case, their ToT projects always result in countless home grown variants and no upper limits on numbers to be built. Our most comparable JV is the Dhruv/Rudra/LCH eco-system -- and that is with a Western firm.

Even today, we hear of the GOI saying we must do better with tech sharing on the PAK FA? The russians can go fvck themselves, continuing to JV with them will never result in a re-usable industrial base so why not try an American line for a change?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4153
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 13 Jun 2017 18:09

^^^
American IPR contracts are even more stringent than the Russians. So good luck

tushar_m

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tushar_m » 13 Jun 2017 18:46

Buy a few Kilo's & go for a 10 year process of P75I.

we have a team that can use it efficiently & a shipyard that can refit it (with little help from our Russian friends).
With billion's of contract's cancelled recently we have 1-2 billion to get set of 4-6 kilos(?). In two years or so Russians can starts delivering these subs.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tushar_m » 13 Jun 2017 18:50

One more point submarine training takes a lot of time .
Even if kalavari class is delivered it will take a few years before our navy could use it efficiently & effectively.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9478
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Jun 2017 18:53

tushar_m wrote:Buy a few Kilo's & go for a 10 year process of P75I.

we have a team that can use it efficiently & a shipyard that can refit it (with little help from our Russian friends).
With billion's of contract's cancelled recently we have 1-2 billion to get set of 4-6 kilos(?). In two years or so Russians can starts delivering these subs.


As a mango this looks right thing to do. Cheap stop gap arrangement to fill the immediate requirement. No major changes in training. Commonality. But I am sure it is not going to happen.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2017 19:19

http://www.defencenews.in/
Can India-US Naval Alliance counter China in the Indian Ocean ?
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
By: DailyO

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Should India forge a Military Alliance with the U.S. to counter an assertive China ?
VOTE in the POLL Section
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The rise of India and China has brought about a situation that has never been witnessed in modern Asian history - the rise of two home-grown maritime powers.

India and China have both been continental powers whose great ambitions and energy needs have led them to the seas of Asia. Strategists and scholars of both countries have talked about the growing rivalry between the two Asian giants, and with the rapid naval expansion and modernisation of both the Indian Navy and People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), the maritime rivalry is poised to intensify.

Nowhere is this rivalry between India and China more evident than in the Indian Ocean, where the Chinese navy forays into India’s "backyard", and with continuing US dominance over global commons, a strategic triangle has formed in the Indian Ocean.

The launch of a second Chinese aircraft carrier and the plan to construct a third aircraft carrier gives credence to the already strong belief among naval strategists that China is looking to strengthen its blue water capabilities. This also alludes to the speculation that China’s aircraft carriers are being built with the Indian Ocean in mind, as aircraft carriers have much less utility in the Pacific, where the Chinese approach has been to deny sea access through anti-access and area denial strategies.

Aircraft carriers can bolster Chinese power projection capabilities beyond its near seas and especially in the Indian Ocean, where China is concerned about its strategically important sea lanes of communications (SLOC), on which China’s sea borne energy supplies are depended.

Furthermore, aircraft carriers, with their mighty size and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities, can act as vital instrument of Chinese soft power in the Indian Ocean region, where the Chinese are investing in maritime infrastructure and boosting their diplomatic clout among the nations.

China has been steadily increasing its naval footprints in the region and with its naval base in Djibouti coming up, it has secured a foothold for its navy in the strategic Gulf of Aden.

The ascent of Chinese naval power has serious ramifications for the Indian Navy which has its own geostrategic interests in the Indian Ocean, which it views as its own "backyard", or to use 20th century geopolitical terms, its "sphere of influence".

In the international fleet review conducted by the Indian Navy off the coast of Visakhapatnam in 2016, India’s naval prowess was at full show. Indian naval vessels along with ships from 52 countries including China participated in the region, which highlighted the rising stature and clout of India’s naval might.

The international fleet review was seen as a stern reminder to China that, apart from US naval presence, the Indian Navy is the "preeminent naval entity" in the Indian Ocean. Furthermore, the theme of the fleet review was “United through Oceans” - emphasising the concept of global commons and freedom of navigation, which is opposite of the Chinese expansionist approach in the South China Sea.

The geography of India, with its southern peninsula thrusting into the Indian Ocean, offers immense geostrategic advantage to the Indian navy to project power deep into the Indian Ocean in three directions. In the decades after Independence, Indian policymakers, marred with a continental mind-set, failed to take advantage of the geostrategic significance of the location. *(Spot on!)

In the face of existential threats emanating from land-based powers of Pakistan and China, the navy was relegated to a mere support service and was commonly known as "the Cinderella service". As such India was never in a position to fill the naval vacuum that had existed in the Indian Ocean after the decline of the British Empire and its "east of Suez" declaration.

The US navy ultimately took the role of the British Royal Navy and became the dominant naval entity in the Indian Ocean. A relatively similar situation may emerge again as the power of the US navy slowly wanes in the Indian Ocean and this time the Indian navy is well positioned to be the principle net security provider in the region.

The official document regarding Indian maritime strategy, issued in 2007, was titled "Freedom to Use the Seas: India’s Maritime-Military Strategy" and in 2015 the Indian navy has gone a step further and taken a more assertive stance in the maritime strategy document titled "Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy".

The "primary" area of interest for the Indian navy was extended taking a south-west trajectory to include the south western Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The "secondary" area of interest was also enlarged to fit two additional choke points - the Mozambique Channel and Ombai-Wetar Straits.

This highlights the Indian navy’s focus on free shipping lanes and freedom of operational manoeuvre. With 90 per cent of India’s trade being carried through sea, which accounts for approximately 42 per cent of GDP, the Indian navy is well justified in "ensuring secure seas".

India’s dependence on energy imports through the seas is also a serious concern which motivates the Indian navy to take a leading role in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean and to provide net security in the region.

If our navy is looking to shoulder more share of international maritime security, then the US navy is seeking to share its maritime responsibility through "cooperation" with other regional navies. In a maritime strategy document titled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea power", the US navy brings its focus on the "Indo-Asia-Pacific" region, a term being increasingly used by US policymakers which seeks to merge the entire Pacific with the Indian Ocean.

The document seeks to reiterate United States’ agenda of "rebalancing" the Asia-Pacific by countering China’s revisionist maritime strategy and to dehort China’s expansionist tendencies in Asia through multilateral and multifaceted engagements.

As one of the chief challenges it mentions "anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities that challenge our global maritime access…" - a clear reference to China’s A2/AD policy in the Pacific. One of the chief elements in the strategy document is the emphasis on "cooperation" with other regional navies in creating a “global network of navies” to address the security challenges.

In a meeting of Indo-US Defence Joint Working Group held in 2007 at New Delhi, it was reported that both sides discussed the rapidly increasing Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean. During former US president Barack Obama’s visit to India in 2015, a joint statement, where particular attention was laid on peaceful resolution of maritime territorial disputes and "freedom of navigation", with specific reference to the South China Sea, was issued.

Similarly in 2016, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US, a joint statement in which the issue of securing maritime domain and settlement of territorial disputes through peaceful means was highlighted.

Due to the assertive stance of China in east Asia and its increasing naval presence in the Indian Ocean, the US and India had both been continually vocal about freedom of navigation and have been concerned about the operational manoeuvrability of their respective navies.

In the inaugural meeting of the maritime security dialogue between India and the US, both countries discussed "issues of mutual interest, including exchange of perspectives on maritime security development in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region as well as prospects for further strengthening cooperation between India and the United States".

It is quite evident that both the Indian and US navy are wary of Chinese naval might. The interest and goals of both the Indian and US navy converge as far as protecting sea lanes of communication and countering the growing threat of deeper Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean region are concerned.

A rising great power with revisionist tendencies like China, which has already staked its claim for almost the whole of South China Sea, is now increasingly looking towards the Indian Ocean and integrating blue water capabilities in its PLN.

The "string of pearls" and the OBOR initiative manifest an ominous Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean region for the Indian security establishment and is a matter of great concern for Indian as well as the US navy.

The bonhomie between nations at the diplomatic level has led to strong defence relations between the armed forces of nations, especially the navy. One of the most noticeable features of the Indo-US maritime co-operation is the Malabar naval exercises. Japan, Australia and Singapore have also participated in the exercises, with Japan being added as a regular member of the exercise alongside India and US.

According to some Chinese scholars, the Malabar exercises are a precursor to a more formal multilateral anti-China naval grouping. How good the argument holds is a matter of further speculation, but in spirit, the Malabar exercises can be seen as a foundation upon which further Indo-US naval co-operation can be built.

In the field of anti-submarine warfare (ASW), there has been significant cooperation between the two countries. In May 2016, Indian and US authorities discussed building strategies on how to keep track of Chinese submarines making inroads into the Indian Ocean.

This joint formulation of strategies hints at how the two navies are aware of the benefits of Indo-US naval synergy in countering China. Last year, US defence secretary Ashton Carter and defence minister ManoharParrikar in a joint statement vowed to deepen Indo-US military ties and the focus was on ASW co-operation. One of the key areas for future ASW co-operation will be naval aviation, where both the Indian and US navy operate Boeing P-8 maritime patrol planes.

One of the overriding elements upon which the nature and scope of future Indo-US military cooperation hinged upon was the signing of the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). Last year, the signing of LEMOA, which allows both countries to access each other’s facilities for repairs and supplies, between India and US can be seen as an agreement just short of a formal alliance.

It is one the four "foundational agreements" that the US enters into with its defence partners. The signing of LEMOA has opened doors for further Indo-US maritime synergy and co-operation in the Indo-Pacific.

With the signing of LEMOA and the existing maritime co-operation, it can be said that a naval entente has emerged between the two navies in the Indian Ocean. In the coming years, an increasingly confident Indian navy, which aims to be the "net security provider" in the Indian Ocean, will seek to ensure "secure seas" in partnership with the US navy, which is looking for a "co-operative strategy" to rebalance China in the Indo-Pacific.

Without entering into any rigid alliance framework, a tactical understanding has formed between India and the US. If the tactical entente indeed strengthens, then in the coming years it may define the true scope and meaning of US "rebalancing" in the Indo-Pacific.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3600
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Jun 2017 23:32

chola wrote:Again, I agree that the best course of action is to stick with LCA and move the project through with orders and investments.

But if there is a good reason for the single-engined aircraft tender then trying an American production lind like the F-16 is not a bad thing. Again, look at South Korea or Japan from their building of local F-solahs. At the very least, they are left with viable eco-systems that allows them to go to the next step.

Look at the investments made in private industry in those countries, and you will understand the difference.

On the PRC, that is already a pet peeve of mine. Why are they able and -- from all visible signs -- allowed by the fvcking Russians to build variant after variant of the Su-27 while our MKI production is straitjacketed to the MKI alone? So comparing witn Cheen is pointless since either through strategic (anti-Unkil) or monetary reasons they are getting far better TOT terms than we are getting. What is the definition of crazy? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. From building the MiG-21 to the MKI, it has not given us a MIC that can support the LCA in numbers.

So who is at fault here? The evil Russians or babus doing the contract negotiations? If China can develop variant after variant of roosi maal, what stops India. As a far more powerful buyer who unlike China has access to western hardware, has India leveraged its position to develop its own variants? Why not? And can you truly blame Russia for this?

Even today, we hear of the GOI saying we must do better with tech sharing on the PAK FA? The russians can go fvck themselves, continuing to JV with them will never result in a re-usable industrial base so why not try an American line for a change?

There is no harm in trying an American line perse so long as appropriate industry inputs are involved, and as Srai pointed out the US clears some IP sharing, and all of this happens at a price that India can afford. There is a very good reason why the GOI keeps talking of collaborating with the ruuskis on projects like the pakfa.... 1. They are the most liberal when it comes to sharing IP, and 2. They will do it at the cheapest price. So far, the euros have been next in line.... As the French demonstrate, but their prices are steep as can be seen from the Rafale. The Israelis too perhaps. But the US has to clear a bunch of things with congress and a plethora of conditions come into play before it sells a product for use, let alone selling IP. But IF, this can be managed and a super hornet mfg line along with appropriate tech transfers, is made, at a price that India can afford, why not. This will be a test for the strategic partnership.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6895
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 14 Jun 2017 00:29

Philip wrote:Solahs,...and get pasted the first time it even spars with a legacy MIG-29! Why the Pakis with their F-16s fled when locked on by our MIG-29s during Kargil.

They fled because they had no BVR missiles in their inventory. Now they do. And unfortunately since our R-77 stocks turned out to be defective, our MKIs and Mig-29s will be fighting with R-27s against their Amraams the next time the balloon goes up, till we get the Astra productionized and inducted in numbers. So chew on that for a while.

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

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 14 Jun 2017 00:52

^^^Cain Marko : "There is a very good reason why the GOI keeps talking of collaborating with the ruuskis on projects like the pakfa.... 1. They are the most liberal when it comes to sharing IP, and 2. They will do it at the cheapest price"

I beg to differ. What IP have they shared? Have they shared the Brahmos engine tech? Can we make our own SU30MKI from scratch under the 'deep ToT'?

On the PAK/FA they would not let the IAF near the plane even after we forked over $300MM. As to price, we have the 'free Viky' if we bought Mig 29Ks. The planes turned out to be unreliable and we paid up for the carrier refit. Instead of $1.5 Bn for the package, we paid close to $3 bn. Penny wise pound foolish. We fall for bait and switch every time. And the Russians know it.

I think the F16 MII is dead--the unit cost will be greater than the F35. The best IMHO we can get today is an F35 arrangement like Japan or Turkey have. That's not a bad thing because we can work with the Israelis to customize things we want.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3600
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Jun 2017 01:15

Cosmo_R wrote:I beg to differ. What IP have they shared? t.

Hint: it looks like a whale, lurks deep in the oceans, and makes the world's a safer place. IP sharing doesn't get any deeper than that. My reading of the Russians is simple.... They will share their best provided India is willing to spend the required Dinero. I think India chose to focus first on completing the Nuke triad and will start bank rolling other tech as funds clear up. Possibly the pakfa.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6895
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 14 Jun 2017 01:24

Cain Marko wrote:Hint: it looks like a whale, lurks deep in the oceans, and makes the world's a safer place. IP sharing doesn't get any deeper than that. My reading of the Russians is simple.... They will share their best provided India is willing to spend the required Dinero.

If not, they will promise it to us for peanuts, sign the contract and then arm-twist us for a whole lot of money just to deliver it, like they did during the Gorshkov saga.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 14 Jun 2017 16:02

Cain Marko wrote:
So who is at fault here? The evil Russians or babus doing the contract negotiations? If China can develop variant after variant of roosi maal, what stops India. As a far more powerful buyer who unlike China has access to western hardware, has India leveraged its position to develop its own variants? Why not? And can you truly blame Russia for this?


You are forgetting the blonde Natasha and her equally sexy brunette friend, Ivana, that the Russians have cleverly put in front of our babus to cloud their judgement. So yes, I still blame Russia.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3600
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Jun 2017 06:29

chola wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
So who is at fault here? The evil Russians or babus doing the contract negotiations? If China can develop variant after variant of roosi maal, what stops India. As a far more powerful buyer who unlike China has access to western hardware, has India leveraged its position to develop its own variants? Why not? And can you truly blame Russia for this?


You are forgetting the blonde Natasha and her equally sexy brunette friend, Ivana, that the Russians have cleverly put in front of our babus to cloud their judgement. So yes, I still blame Russia.

And how do we know that all American beauties and French cheries are not being appropriately plied towards the oh so innocent and naive babu, hainji? Or are the Chinese negotiators simply immune to the charms of Natasha? Maybe they are using the eunuchs of their imperial court to negotiate.... Time to castrate the babus I say.
nachiket wrote:If not, they will promise it to us for peanuts, sign the contract and then arm-twist us for a whole lot of money just to deliver it, like they did during the Gorshkov saga.

Uhh, the Indian side was only too willing to look at a deal that was too good to be true.... And frankly, India got a decent carrier with a complement of 45 fighters for about $5 billion, not too bad. In any case, What were the multiple naval inspection teams doing while in Russia.... I remember even arm chair types had enough expertise to suggest that this could be a boondoggle, don't tell me the guys in the know didn't know. Btw this is no different from the Scorpene saga or the umpteen drdo sagas that run over initial cost estimates.

Point is.... The Russians are willing to trade technology that the others are simply not as in the case of nuke subs, space etc... , and if others are willing, the cost is well beyond GOI reach... Happens time and time again with French and euro goodies for example. The Israelis have slightly changed that dynamic but they have limited tech to offer and going by the barak 8 story, even here IP is not transferred.

I'm not saying that the russkis are sugar daddies..... They will certainly extract their pound of flesh. But I'm betting that they will trade some truly valuable stuff in exchange for that meat and that too at prices that India can afford. The MKI vs M2K battle in the 90s is a clear example.

Bait and switch is not a Russian monopoly. As in the case of any market transaction, caveat emptor is applicable.

As far the US is concerned, I see this as a great opportunity for it to wean India outside Russian influence and create a check vs the dragon, all in one deft stroke. Offer something truly special, technology and price wise, and enjoy Indian support, market access and partnership for decades to come. As others have found out the gravy train is rich, promising and long-lasting with India. Not like the middle east sheikhs whose viability lasts only to the extent of their oil supplies, which could be blind sided in the coming years by cleaner resources.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 15 Jun 2017 11:04

4 contracts jettisoned
Another contract, worth Rs 1,800 crore, for the purchase of 98 Blackshark torpedoes manufactured by a subsidiary of Finmeccanica (now Leonardo) came under a cloud after the firm was accused of paying bribes.

The fourth, for the purchase of 18 naval MRHs, hit an impasse in 2014, when commercial bids by Sikorsky for S-70B choppers were found to be way above the Rs 6,000 crore the MoD had set aside.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 15 Jun 2017 11:16

"Jettison" must be a most powerful babu in the MOD.Permanent Under-Secretary what? He's left his mark on def. non-acquisitions umpteen number of times.From his behaviour,he seems to be utterly honest,.How can such an abberation exist in the MOD? No wonder our def. deals are being delayed,etc.,tx to Jettison.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3645
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 16 Jun 2017 04:29

Philip wrote:"Jettison" must be a most powerful babu in the MOD.Permanent Under-Secretary what? He's left his mark on def. non-acquisitions umpteen number of times.From his behaviour,he seems to be utterly honest,.How can such an abberation exist in the MOD? No wonder our def. deals are being delayed,etc.,tx to Jettison.



Stop corrupting Jet Li's name. Yes, it seems he is incorruptible if you put it that way. lol

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2629
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 16 Jun 2017 16:36

Race to build amphibious warships worth $3 billion for Navy enters last lap

The race to supply amphibious warships to the Indian Navy has entered its last lap, with the frontrunners likely to submit their commercial bids to the defence ministry next week.

The Navy might spend an estimated $3 billion to scale up its amphibious warfare capabilities for possible expeditionary missions.

While Reliance Defence has teamed up with French shipbuilder DCNS, L&T has tossed its hat into the ring by partnering with Spanish state-owned company Navantia to build the amphibious warships – known as landing platform docks (LPDs) – in the country. The firms have to respond with their commercial bids by June 22.

The LPDs will have a displacement of nearly 30,000 tonnes, making them the largest warships to be built in the country after the 37,500-tonne aircraft carrier INS Vikrant being assembled at the state-owned Cochin Shipyard Limited. They will carry helicopters, marine commandos, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and other equipment to support ground forces on enemy beaches.

Navy sources said the electrical propulsion-powered LPDs would have an endurance of around 1,000 nautical miles. Each warship would be designed to accommodate more than 1,400 personnel, and have a hangar to accommodate around 12 helicopters.

The Navy’s solitary LPD, the INS Jalashwa, has a displacement of 16,950 tonnes. Formerly known as the USS Trenton, it was bought from the United States. The Navy also has a fleet of five smaller amphibious warships with a displacement of 5,600 tonnes, and even smaller 1,150-tonne landing ship tanks.

Senior Navy officials said that after the firms submit their bids, the defence ministry’s Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) will scrutinise various aspects of the deal to make sure that all the procedures are complied with. The TOC report could be out by July-end, following which commercial negotiations would begin.

The officials said the lucrative contract could be awarded to the lowest bidder by the year-end.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 16 Jun 2017 16:43

^ 1000 miles must be a typo. would be 10,000 miles. even a DDG is 5000+ miles.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jayasimha » 16 Jun 2017 17:27

some people get worms in the stomach when pirangi toys' contract is scrapped. " thats expected"
I think More contracts will be scrapped(mil & Civil).
MP farmers incident must be reason behind all this.
R.I.P for those farmers who were part of that tragedy. their sacrifice should/will not go waste.

Best thing to happen now is Fm in DM in one. we get 2 for the price of 1 (in all respects).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 16 Jun 2017 17:52

I guess it's ok to make fun of Hindu surnames.

But seriously bravo Sh. Jaitley. He seems to be exact opposite of a.k. Antony, who did foreign purchases like c17 , Augusta wasteland vvip helis, c130 superfast while slowed down indigenous development, halved the financial powers of Dr. Saraswat the then chief of DRDO.

Jaitley is a Brahmin Saraswat surname from Panjaatis of Punjab Jaitley, Mohlas, jhakkad, Jhingans & Kumadiya.

Just like on NaMo visit British had displayed Sanskrit symbol of Om as Nazi mark to insult Sanatan Dharma. If Christian cross is painted and displayed in Bharat to protest against British PM the protester would be thrown in jail for decades.

Only Hindu Symbols are tone insulted ! Right Sir Philip?

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jayasimha » 16 Jun 2017 17:56

another point of view...

"our def. deals are being delayed,etc.,tx to Jettison."

may be some turf is being laid before Modi visit to Israel.
may be lot of joint development with Israel & Indian industry will be announced.

my lungi has started dancing and I am feeling the french sun on my face...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 16 Jun 2017 18:44

"Jettison" was meant to be the "unknown babu",like the Unknown soldier",who ties up everything in red tape so strong that it would need a sword like Excalibur to cut through and when the sword fails,"jettisoning" the proposed acquisition is the result. The name was never meant to represent our current DM/FM,more famously known as "jet Li",Jet Li" and Jettison" are two diff. charcaters!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3600
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Jun 2017 00:49

Manish_Sharma wrote:I guess it's ok to make fun of Hindu surnames.

But seriously bravo Sh. Jaitley. He seems to be exact opposite of a.k. Antony, who did foreign purchases like c17 , Augusta wasteland vvip helis, c130 superfast while slowed down indigenous development, halved the financial powers of Dr. Saraswat the then chief of DRDO.

Jaitley is a Brahmin Saraswat surname from Panjaatis of Punjab Jaitley, Mohlas, jhakkad, Jhingans & Kumadiya.

Just like on NaMo visit British had displayed Sanskrit symbol of Om as Nazi mark to insult Sanatan Dharma. If Christian cross is painted and displayed in Bharat to protest against British PM the protester would be thrown in jail for decades.

Only Hindu Symbols are tone insulted ! Right Sir Philip?

:shock: I think Philip meant something altogether different.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 17 Jun 2017 04:19

I think the utility of p-8 poseidon in hunting and killing subs may be limited or at least overrated esp in indian context.

If the very limited numbers of them are constantly taking of and landing from INS rajali.

The chinese satellites can track each -737 P-8 and inform their subs to stay deep underwater knowing where the P-8 are loitering.

It may be better to mix up the P-8 with civilian 737s taking off and landing from a busy civilian airport so as to minimize chinese tracking the planes

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7465
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 17 Jun 2017 05:07

That would give them the answer of when (if they can have 24 hour surveillance). But they won't know where the aircraft actually are.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Surya » 17 Jun 2017 06:30

not Indian Navy but of interest considering the history

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s ... an-n773521

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 17 Jun 2017 12:35

Latest IMR has a lead article about the IN's carrier ambitions and asks very relevant Qs.Why the IN is hell-bent upon EMALS,wanting (3 systems,"for future super carriers"!) when it has plans for only a 65K t CV as its next flat top. The US is beset right now with EMALS problems,Trump's call for reverting back to steam cats another moot point. He says that the IN must introspect about its ambitions which are not realistic.The author makes an important point of why the IN/IAF are not leveraging their island air bases (5) in the A&N islands and S.India,from where long-ranged AEW/AWACS aircraft can easily monitor the main sea lanes of the IOR. I made this point many times earlier,that aircraft like our erstwhile Bears,Phalcons,etc.,operating from land bases,could stay on station a considerable time monitoring the IOR.We even have agreements with Mauritius,Seychelles,etc. and could leverage the Maldives and Sri Lanka (if need be) with continued pressure ,taking up some of their maritime surveillance tasks too.Insistence upon EMAL:S would force us to buy only US aircraft,making us very vulnerable and susceptible to US armtwisting.

To quote again the "underutilisation of the A&N islands",he says that it "is a travesty that the bases do not operate AEW,AWACS and mid-air refuelling tankers".A point also made is how with just one carrier,Russia has been able to use it in the Meditt in the Syrian campaign successfully.

The author moots a third N-powered STOBAR carrier to be built immediatelywith more MIG-29Ks for commonality,not to "dismiss" this fighter operating around the globe,as whatever problems they supposedly have will definitely be ironed out since Russia is also buying sev. sqds. for its own carrier/s.He says that the this carrier is urgently required and a 4th even larger carrier with EMALS,etc. could arrive post 2035/40 of 90-100,000t.On the cost basis alone,a third EMALS carrier ,with another line of aircraft,bells and whistles,would impinge drastically upon the more urgent need for subs,warships,mine counter measure vessels,MR helos,etc.

PS:Whatever the views expressed by the author,it is incontestable that a future EMALS,N-powered carrier as IAC-2 would beggar the IN ,grievously impinge upon the other more urgent priorities like subs.MCM vessels,MR helos,LRMP?AEW aircraft and extra surface combatants. I have a thought.If the US is willing and IN want to try out,we should lease asap a small number of Hawkeye AEW aircraft base them in the A*N islands and S.India,with tanker refuelling,and see whether they suit our needs. Simultaneously,we should accelerate our AEW/WACS programme,where a desi AEW programme is well underway,so that the we can operate a siginficant number of these platforms ,again with refuelling,in the IOR.The experience of both would give us an idea of what AEW system we should adopt for our future Cat carrier in the future,post 2035.Until then there is no alternative to a (modified) sister ship of IAC-1 to be started by the end of this year/early next year,which should arrive before 2025.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 17 Jun 2017 16:36

Why the IN is hell-bent upon EMALS,wanting (3 systems,"for future super carriers"!) when it has plans for only a 65K t CV as its next flat top.


Those are completely unrelated things. The number of systems acquired will be dependent on a host of factors and whether a shore based facility is also part of the equation.

Trump's call for reverting back to steam cats another moot point


I vaguely remember that. It was a few days before his administration awarded a contract worth $200 Million for additional work to General Atomics.

Insistence upon EMAL:S would force us to buy only US aircraft,making us very vulnerable and susceptible to US armtwisting.


Very easy to call BS on this claim. Any aircraft that can take off from a steam based catapult can be cleared for EMALS operations. If and when (imho its a question of when and not if) France pursues a new carrier they will likely certify the Rafale for EMALS ops given its already capable of steal catapult operations.

Perhaps what you meant was that an EMALS decision would likely remove the MiG-29K from the equation since the USN is unlikely to allow Russian crews to certify their aircraft on US systems at a US facility. Out of all the carrier capable aircraft out there, the MiG-29K is the least popular and it would appear that the IN is already thinking beyond it and will most likely strongly consider the Rafale or Super Hornet, both are either cleared or can easily be cleared for EMALS operations. The LCA-MK2-Naval variant can also be cleared by incorporating design changes and following through with certification.

The fighter wing on an EMALS carrier can be completely deprived of any US supplied component minus the engines on the LCA by simply extending the Rafale deal to cover additional Rafale-M's, and later adding MK2-N's. The same can be done on the munition side with a mix of indigenous, European, and Israeli munitions. Only thing that an EMALS pursuit will make tougher is the incorporation of Russian fighters into a future carrier air wing. Perhaps that is the main point you are getting to in a roundabout way.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19942
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 19 Jun 2017 11:50

The issue is not where the tech comes from ,what aircraft will be used but the huge costs involved.An EMALS system costs $1B a pop and requires a huge investment in the power plant (nuclear) for the vessel.The costs and time to construct such a carrier is at the moment beyond the IN's capacity,when it is taking around 10 years to build a 40,000t flat top without these bells and whistles. There is simply no money in the IN's kitty for such extravagance. Look at the state of mine warfare and subs,let alone the req. for around 140 multi-role helos! It is past time for the IN to stop its "impossible dreams" and get real,they're just a huge waste of time.As for aircraft,Rafales are $200M a pop for air force ones,and the F-18 is plagued with oxygen system faults (read the same in the US mil tech td.). For the IN to have two types of carrier aircraft would pose another major inventory.MRO problem. Another type only if the 29Ks supposed serviceability issues are not satisfactorily sorted out. Even the CNS has said that it would take around 3-4 years to finalise on a second naval carrier aircraft.

The IAF chief says his fleet is so reduced as akin to "playing a cricket match with just 7 players"! The IN has just decommissioned 2 MCM vessels,and has just 4 left for sanitising the coastline on both seaboards! One cannot understand the logic of this when new SoKo MCM vessels will not arrive for another 3-4 years from Goa shipyard. Bears decommissioned becos P-8Is have arrived,understandable,but the Natyas? Even he US is to return to service de-commissioned warships s so that it can keep fleet numbers happy.Sev Perry class FFGs are slated for a return to service.Arleigh Burke DDGs will be life-extended to serve beyond 35 years.
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/16/cno-ri ... y-underway

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 361
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Eric Leiderman » 20 Jun 2017 07:15

EMALS does not cost 1 billion $ each you will most probably get 2 or 3 for that amount , The power plant for an Aircraft carrier is huge the average power for e-mals operation is minuscule compared to that, The peak power is another issue and can be adapted using capacitor banks etc.
Any power plant fm Nuclear to diesel to gas turbine or a combination of the last two, would be suitable.
We will have 2 Aircraft carriers within the 20018-20 time-frame. We can manage with that for the next 10 years. This is a long term vision and will be a neccessatity by 2030. If we can build a 65 k unit in 10 years from keel laying it would be a terrific achievement. Furthermore by 2030 we will have the cash to work on a 2nd or 3rd one incorporating all the improvements etc. A lot of the content will be imported , hopefully as we stabilize production that will come down.
As to the complexities of the unit as a whole the extra size will not add to that, As a matter of fact, with more space available the designers will have to make less compromises. The smaller the unit jam packed with equipment is a designers nightmare, (LCA Case in point)
The weak link is the slow rate of assembly/manafacture. If modular construction is used the size is a non issue as multiple units can be fabricated simultanously and welded together shrinking the timeframe to completion. We need shipyard consultants the right project management. This has to be given to a private yard, with factors built in for a fixed price on delivery within a certain time frame. The steel work itself is the easy part.
And last but not least , in the 10 year gestation period the project scope has to be frozen, or else it will be a mess.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1960
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 20 Jun 2017 11:14

Eric Leiderman wrote:And last but not least , in the 10 year gestation period the project scope has to be frozen, or else it will be a mess.

This is a key point that the forces should understand and work at. Also the shipyards and the factories need to be severely penalized for any huge delays. Some amount of nominal delay is expected to creep into any program for sure.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests