Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Dec 2017 19:47

Yup - enjoy the nautanki for another decade.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 19:53

V.true.I shall share something tomorrow about the concept of time in the land of Babudom.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 11 Dec 2017 23:25

srai wrote:
Philip wrote:This 24 was an immediate interim req.to prevent a critical loss of ASW capability with our principal surface combatants.The need is for around 200 incl.LUHs also for the CG.
"Immediate" is a relative term in the Indian context

Plus 108. This is a 15 year old requirement. We basically have no ASW assets now. And I am willing to bet serious money that this won’t change is another 10 years. Our naval edge over Pak is finished. Period. I would love a comment from Vidurji on this. Just that if he will take the other side of my bet ?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 08:28

Cain Marko wrote: So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

As discussed before too , Mig 29K came as "package " with acquisition of Gorshkov . The a/c have teething problem with engines and is not fully ruggedized for carrier operation .

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/0 ... uggedized/
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’
NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.

“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said.

“There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added.

The service did not enter into a contract for automatic maintenance of the aircraft with the Russians while purchasing the MiG-29K fighter aircraft in 2004 and 2010 for $2.2 billion.

“Today they are fully dependent on Russia for all major support issues,” an Indian Ministry of Defence official said of the Navy. “The Indian MoD has taken up the matter with the Russians on several occasions. Though the Russians have sent their technical teams, no solution has been forthcoming.”

However, Anastasia Kravchenkov, a representative of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, said in official correspondence: “Neither we, nor our partners have received any official claims about operational problems with the Russian MiG aircrafts.”

Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”

According to the MoD official, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is of little help in this situation: “Without approval of design authority, it is difficult to go in for any modification.”

HAL is currently seeking funds from the Navy for the maintenance and overhaul of 113 engines including spares.

According to the MoD official, the government would prefer an agreement involving the Navy, Russia and HAL to undertake structural improvements for the MiG-29K fighters.

The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier.

“After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

A report last year by India’s autonomous auditing agency, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, said the MiG-29K was to be technically accepted despite discrepancies and anomalies.

“Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engine MiG-29K fighters have been withdrawn from service due to design-related defects,” according to the report.

Early last year, the Indian Navy entered the global market to procure 57 multirole fighters to be used on future aircraft carriers, essentially rejecting the MiG-29K fighters.

Although companies have already shown interest in India’s request for information — the United States’ Boeing with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; France’s Dassault with its Rafale M, Sweden’s Saab with its Gripen Maritime and Russia‘s MiG-29K — a formal tender to kick-start the acquisition process for a new fighter aircraft is yet to be issued.

Officials from the Indian Navy and the MoD would not comment on the fate of the purchase program.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10000-c ... 9-1437329

10,000-Crore Mistake? Auditor Fails Navy's Main Fighter Jet, MiG-29

NEW DELHI:

The navy's ambition to have a formidable presence far away from the Indian coastline rests largely on one fighter jet - the MiG-29K bought from Russia. And according to the state's national auditor, it's working so poorly that it's hardly available for use.

In a scathing report submitted to parliament two days ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG, which has audited the Navy's MiG-29 programme, says that "The MiG-29K, which is a carrier-borne multi-role aircraft and the mainstay of integral fleet air defence, is riddled with problems" including engine malfunctions which means that in "a best case scenario, a MiG-29 jet will be fully fit for operations less than 50 per cent of the time it is required to be deployed."

India has acquired 45 of these fighter jets for nearly 10,500 crores in 2004 and 2010. The jet, which is deployed on India's formidable warship the INS Vikramaditya, is also meant to be the front-line fighter for the carrier Vikrant, which is being built in Kochi, and possibly the Vishal, a third aircraft carrier still at the design stage.

The CAG report says that since the MiG-29K plane was inducted in 2010, more than half of its engines have been diagnosed with design-related defects. "The issue had serious flight safety implications, since in-flight engine defects had led to ten cases of single engine landings," the report says.

Nor has the MiG-29 been able to fare acceptably during the violent process of landing on the tiny deck of an aircraft carrier. Restrained upon touchdown by an arrestor hook which snags a wire on the deck of the Vikramaditya, the MiG-29K has encountered several component failures. The CAG report adds that "defects had occurred despite numerous design improvements and modifications" and the recurring problems were "having an adverse impact on Indian Navy pilots training."

Speaking to NDTV, senior Navy officers admit that there are no quick-fix solutions to the litany of problems with its frontline fighter. They say they had little say in the choice of aircraft they purchased since the MiG-29K was bought as part of a "package deal" which included the transfer and refurbishment of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov which the Navy has re-christened the INS Vikramaditya.

They say a team of engineers of the Russian manufacturer are stationed in Goa where the jets are based (when they aren't deployed on the aircraft carrier) working to resolve all the technical issues which have crept up.

Senior officers also point out the India is the first operator to induct the MiG-29K - even ahead of the Russian Navy. They say overcoming teething problems for new platforms is a time-consuming issue, but there's no need for major concern because Russia has also decided to replace its carrier-borne Sukhoi fighters with the same MiG-29K.

The Russians, Indian Navy sources grudgingly tell us, will no doubt benefit from the Indian experience of rectifying recurrent snags on what will become their own front-line naval fighter aircraft.

Indian Navy wants its only fighter aircraft to toughen up
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 03125.html

MiG-29K fighter planes face operational deficiencies: CAG report
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 400918.cms

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 08:43

Mig 29K having engine problem is not unique to us , actually we should be proud of our naval aviators that they are managing to record sorties with out any incidence .
Here’s Why the Russian MiG-29KR Crashed Into the Sea, According to Report
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/61 ... -to-report

Though fuel starvation to engine is cited but its intriguing how an a/c having no fuel at all was asked to enter a holding pattern . We had our engine problems and that collaborate with this incidence .

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Dec 2017 10:05

Cain Marko wrote:So, the issue with the 29k availabililty has been a spares issue and nothing fundamentally wrong with engine itself as many on brf has speculated? So, why does india continnue to face spares issues withh russian hardware? lack of support deals to keep uptiimes high? OEM and russian arm twisting?

Its more detailed than that.

Russian aircraft design philosophy is based on their WW2 experience. The Messerschmitt BF 109 was outclassed overnight by Spitfire & Hurricane that were outclassed overnight by Fw190 that were outclassed by Mustang & Tempest that were outclassed by Me262 jet fighter. All in the span of a six year war.

So the Russians never built anything with high type technical life (TTL) because the design would get obsolete before it reached its TTL. This strategy worked in cold war where new aircraft designs were churned out every 5-10 years making earlier ones obsolete.

For example, here is Al-31FP engine TBO & TTL

http://www.hal-india.com/Sukhoi%20Engin ... put/M__140

TBO and TTL of AL31FP Engine is :
TBO 1000 Hrs
TTL 2000 Hrs

For a comparable western engines, the TBO is 2 to 4 times that of Russian engines with newer engine components reaching TBO six times that of Russian engines.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... f404-being

The new compressor will improve airflow and efficiency, while increasing time between overhauls from 4,000 to 6,000 hours. The 3-D aero turbine will provide more efficiency and high-temperature capability, while increasing time between overhauls from 2,000 to 6,000 hours.

Russian components and spares too wore out quickly for the same reason.

In the 70's & 80's, Russian factories churned out spares and gave it to us at friendship prices, so it wasnt a problem.

With the end of cold war, the Russian economy & industry collapsed. Boris Yeltsin had to ask Narasimha Rao for money to pay salaries before elections.

While designs like Su-30 & MiG-29 were excellent, their manufacturing standards and quality control plummeted. Same for spares - manufacturing was intermittent due to intermittent orders and quality was extremely poor.

That plagued both Su-30MKI & MiG-29K inductions. Manufacturing defects in the fighter, components wearing off faster than certified, and lack of availability of spares.

When components wore off faster, Ministry of Finance rightly questioned why is something certified to be overhauled after 1000 hours requires overhaul after only 500 hours.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sukhoi- ... ble-747483

New Delhi: Sukhoi-30 MKI, the most powerful and modern fighter jets in Indian Air Force's stable, has been hit by mid-air engine failures. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in Parliament today that as many as 35 instances of engine failures were reported in 2013-14 - that's nearly three a month.

In all, there are 69 instances of engine failure in the last four years, the minister said. Inquiries by the Air Force have revealed that in as many as 33 instances, the engines failed because of impure fuel, in another 11 cases, the problem was caused by excessive vibration and in eight others, engine failures were reported because of low pressure in the lubricant tanks, the Defence Minister said. About five SU-30 MKI have crashed since 2009.

Mr Parrikar said that the engines were scheduled to be overhauled after every 1000 hours of flying, but the defects started showing-up after only 500 hours of flying. The minister said that Russia-based NPO Saturn, manufacturers of Su-30 Al-31FP engines, offered to make "nine technological improvements" during overhauls, and added that after the modifications the engines were flying for upto 900 hours.

Still not reached 1000 hours as designed.

Since the Russians are not doing any major R&D, they refuse to transfer technology to India despite contractual agreement of their meager revenue generating Su-30 & MiG-29s.

These are the problems afflicting Russian stuff. This has been solved to a certain extent by Russians supplying more spares and opening depots in India like for MiG-29K, Ka-31 & INS Vikramaditya. Here is one such depot

http://www.oskros.com/assets/osk-ros-ma ... ochure.pdf

Anyways, because of lag of Russian technology, no ships or fighters are foreseen to be purchased. IAF is disinterested in PAKFA whose engine, radar & electronics are significantly delayed. Possibly only very high end stuff like Akula & Yasen submarines and ABM systems like S-400 to protect VIPs and Netas will be purchased.

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Dec 2017 12:39

^^ Oh,oh....blasphemous post.
That cannot be true and it is the end user like India who doesnt know how to use the Russian products and the end user fault he didnt negotiate properly

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 16:05

Maximum russi maal are crappy to the extent that we have to integrate our or western technology to keep it relevant. As hakeemji rightly said that we got badly screwed up in the midst of cold war. Our stop gap strategy have cost us a lot and it's still counting .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2017 16:41

Yes my friend useless Sov. era missile boats just went to Karachi for a joy ride.Tcch, tech! Foxtrot subs cordoned off Karachi while western countries refused to sell us subs.Not to mention the MIGs,etc. that won the air war.A shame that a few have such short memories.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Dec 2017 16:45

Philip wrote:Yes my friend useless Sov. era missile boats just went to Karachi for a joy ride.Tcch, tech! Foxtrot subs cordoned off Karachi while western countries refused to sell us subs.Not to mention the MIGs,etc. that won the air war.A shame that a few have such short memories.

So a missile boat, that did what it's supposed to do, is the reason why we should buy tons of other russki stuff that doesn't work?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Dec 2017 16:55

I think if it was not for Ruski stuff we would not have much of Air Force, very little of Navy and an army minus most equipment. Also, Ruski stuff are not killing the Tejas, the western stuff is competing against Tejas.

Ruski stuff are hurting the Arjun. It is a fact. We are OK in missiles on our own and no thanks to Russia here. The strategic defence S400 and Bramhos have their Ruski umbrella.

Russian weapons as of now are critical for national defence. We must work to replace them with indigenous ones but calling them trash is forgetting their value add over a long period.

Let us not forget the Mi 17 and the INS Chakra in service. 02 of the most potent systems in their own categories are Russian.

Does this mean it is all good. Not at all. It is a weakness. We are just so dependent on Russia today that it is impairing free foreign policy. We need to make more at home and no we do not need Western Systems either.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2017 17:23

Well put.In fact with JVs like BMos, we are leapfrogging old tech and are being helped to get onto our own feet wherever poss.Hypersonic BMos is on the cards, has anyone else offered us the same? Any offer of a rail gun JV from the Yanquis? Not to mention the most critical programme of all our N-subs, where we're getting not just Akula SSGNs plus N-sub tech.

Anyway these comments are frivolous and a waste of time replying to.The services and GOI know what they want.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 17:27

No individual weapon win a war , its the strategy that works. In the last limited war Bofors and Mirage got more attention and ironically both are western platforms . Add to that , percentage of ruski equipment in our defense is shrinking year on year.Deals will be more on strategic weapon where there is tech denial.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 17:48

deejay wrote:I think if it was not for Ruski stuff we would not have much of Air Force, very little of Navy and an army minus most equipment. Also, Ruski stuff are not killing the Tejas, the western stuff is competing against Tejas.

Ruski stuff are hurting the Arjun. It is a fact. We are OK in missiles on our own and no thanks to Russia here. The strategic defence S400 and Bramhos have their Ruski umbrella.

Russian weapons as of now are critical for national defence. We must work to replace them with indigenous ones but calling them trash is forgetting their value add over a long period.

Let us not forget the Mi 17 and the INS Chakra in service. 02 of the most potent systems in their own categories are Russian.

Does this mean it is all good. Not at all. It is a weakness. We are just so dependent on Russia today that it is impairing free foreign policy. We need to make more at home and no we do not need Western Systems either.

Deejay saab Russian equipments are crappy when compared to their alternatives we can find else where. In recent past when ever there is any qualitative trial among Russsian and western platforms , the ruski maal were nowhere in the scene.Having a certain percentage of soviet equipment is in our arsenal doesn't justify that they are best . We had to buy because of many compulsions . With reduced compulsions many of those soviet era junks will be discontinued and replaced by western or Indian stuffs.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 12 Dec 2017 17:59

shaun wrote:...

Deejay saab Russian equipments are crappy when compared to their alternatives we can find else where. In recent past when ever there is any qualitative trial among Russsian and western platforms , the ruski maal were nowhere in the scene.Having a certain percentage of soviet equipment is in our arsenal doesn't justify that they are best . We had to buy because of many compulsions . With reduced compulsions many of those soviet era junks will be discontinued and replaced by western or Indian stuffs.

Hi Shaun, please just deejay.

On the Russian stuff and whether they are as good or not with the western stuff, I think they come from 02 different design philosophies. The Western world is designing weapons which are really technologically the next generation, specially the Americans. It requires a budget of US or the middle east oil kingdoms to afford any meaningful numbers.

Russians are not as close to the Americans in tech development or MTBF numbers but are more affordable and it also comes from their own economic situations. They have some unique solutions which the west does not have. Mi 17 comes to mind straight away. So does the AK 47. I am sure the West will have counters but these weapons stand on their own. They are rugged and not so expensive. I will not call them trash by any standards.

The other important factor is Russian weapons have little or no strings attached. Sure their spare supply has been poor but it is better that than COMCASA, CISMOA (LEMOA) and what's the third one?

Finally, Russian or Western systems are each a burden and limit our own freedom to act or use these weapons. It is imperative that in due course we literally become a 3rd/4th alternative for all weapons like US, Russia and now China.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 12 Dec 2017 18:13

JTull wrote:
Philip wrote:Yes my friend useless Sov. era missile boats just went to Karachi for a joy ride.Tcch, tech! Foxtrot subs cordoned off Karachi while western countries refused to sell us subs.Not to mention the MIGs,etc. that won the air war.A shame that a few have such short memories.
So a missile boat, that did what it's supposed to do, is the reason why we should buy tons of other russki stuff that doesn't work?

These missile boats did what such missile boats were NEVER, EVER intended to do.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 12 Dec 2017 18:16

deejay wrote:
shaun wrote:...

Deejay saab Russian equipments are crappy when compared to their alternatives we can find else where. In recent past when ever there is any qualitative trial among Russsian and western platforms , the ruski maal were nowhere in the scene.Having a certain percentage of soviet equipment is in our arsenal doesn't justify that they are best . We had to buy because of many compulsions . With reduced compulsions many of those soviet era junks will be discontinued and replaced by western or Indian stuffs.
Hi Shaun, please just deejay.

On the Russian stuff and whether they are as good or not with the western stuff, I think they come from 02 different design philosophies. The Western world is designing weapons which are really technologically the next generation, specially the Americans. It requires a budget of US or the middle east oil kingdoms to afford any meaningful numbers.

Russians are not as close to the Americans in tech development or MTBF numbers but are more affordable and it also comes from their own economic situations. They have some unique solutions which the west does not have. Mi 17 comes to mind straight away. So does the AK 47. I am sure the West will have counters but these weapons stand on their own. They are rugged and not so expensive. I will not call them trash by any standards.

The other important factor is Russian weapons have little or no strings attached. Sure their spare supply has been poor but it is better that than COMCASA, CISMOA (LEMOA) and what's the third one?

Finally, Russian or Western systems are each a burden and limit our own freedom to act or use these weapons. It is imperative that in due course we literally become a 3rd/4th alternative for all weapons like US, Russia and now China.

Basically, the design philosophy of western and russian/soviet systems are very different.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 12 Dec 2017 18:28

chetak wrote:
JTull wrote:
So a missile boat, that did what it's supposed to do, is the reason why we should buy tons of other russki stuff that doesn't work?
These missile boats did what such missile boats were NEVER, EVER intended to do.

Absolutely and that’s because of innovative use by the IN. Please feel free to join the discussion on the tactics thread.

Also if I may add to the debate here in general - T Sarkar sir gave very specific examples of some recent issues and explained all aspects of those well. And also the evolution of the relationship. He didn’t say that it wasn’t an important relationship in the past but things change. At the same time he didn’t say all they have ever done is junk. So Let’s keep things in perspective and not generalise to an extent that the original thought is totally distorted.

arun · Post by **arun** » 12 Dec 2017 18:31

THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN INDIAN NAVAL DOCTRINE : Assessing the Likely Usefulness of the Flattop in an Indo-Pakistani War Scenario :

US Naval War College

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 18:32

chetak wrote:
JTull wrote:
So a missile boat, that did what it's supposed to do, is the reason why we should buy tons of other russki stuff that doesn't work?
These missile boats did what such missile boats were NEVER, EVER intended to do.

That was Indian ingenuity at its best , what even the Roosis could not believe.

deejay wrote: On the Russian stuff and whether they are as good or not with the western stuff, I think they come from 02 different design philosophies. The Western world is designing weapons which are really technologically the next generation, specially the Americans. It requires a budget of US or the middle east oil kingdoms to afford any meaningful numbers.

Russians are not as close to the Americans in tech development or MTBF numbers but are more affordable and it also comes from their own economic situations. They have some unique solutions which the west does not have. Mi 17 comes to mind straight away. So does the AK 47. I am sure the West will have counters but these weapons stand on their own. They are rugged and not so expensive. I will not call them trash by any standards.

The other important factor is Russian weapons have little or no strings attached. Sure their spare supply has been poor but it is better that than COMCASA, CISMOA (LEMOA) and what's the third one?

Finally, Russian or Western systems are each a burden and limit our own freedom to act or use these weapons. It is imperative that in due course we literally become a 3rd/4th alternative for all weapons like US, Russia and now China.

Sir , I agree with what you just said above.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 12 Dec 2017 18:36

chetak wrote: Basically, the design philosophy of western and russian/soviet systems are very different.

So basically what is our philosophy , is it Hybrid ??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Dec 2017 18:49

arun wrote:THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN INDIAN NAVAL DOCTRINE : Assessing the Likely Usefulness of the Flattop in an Indo-Pakistani War Scenario :

US Naval War College

The doctrine, published in Oct, 2015 (the one prior was publshed in 2007):

Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy

Synopsis:

Primary Areas
India’s primary areas of maritime interest include the following:-
• India’s coastal areas and maritime zones, including coastline, islands, internal sea waters, territorial waters, contiguous zone, EEZ and continental shelf.
• The Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, Andaman Sea, and their littoral regions.
• The Persian Gulf and its littoral, which is the source of majority of our oil supplies and gas imports, and is home to more than seven million expatriate Indians.
• The Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and their littoral regions.
• South-West Indian Ocean, including IOR island nations therein and East Coast of Africa littoral regions.
• The choke points leading to, from and across the Indian Ocean, including the Sixdegree Channel; Eight/ Nine-degree Channels; Straits of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Malacca, Singapore, Sunda and Lombok; the Mozambique Channel, and Cape of Good Hope and their littoral regions.
• Other areas encompassing our SLOCs, and vital energy and resource interests.

Secondary Areas
India’s secondary areas of maritime interest include the following:-
• South-East Indian Ocean, including sea routes to the Pacific Ocean and littoral regions in vicinity.
• South and East China Seas, Western Pacific Ocean, and their littoral regions.
• Southern Indian Ocean Region, including Antarctica.
• Mediterranean Sea, West Coast of Africa, and their littoral regions.
• Other areas of national interest based on considerations of Indian diaspora, overseas investments and political relations.

arun · Post by **arun** » 12 Dec 2017 18:52

Granted nearly a fortnight old but nonetheless posting for archival purpose. Excerpt dealing with Force Level Planning and Acquisitions from Full text of Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba’s Navy Day speech.

Information on ASW Corrvettes, WJFAC, IAC-1, NOPV, SW-ASWC, DSV, Scorpene Subs, DSRV and commencement of the next phase of Seabird at Karwar:

Force Level Planning and Acquisitions

I will now change tack from operations to force level planning and future acquisition plans.

Induction of new assets are being progressed in consonance with the Indian Navy’s perspective plans. As on date, we have 34 ships under construction and it is a matter of great pride that all of them are being constructed in Indian shipyards. The war-fighting capability of the Navy’s surface fleet has been augmented by induction of three indigenous Anti-Submarine Warfare Corvettes, two Water-Jet Fast Attack Craft and two Landing Craft this year.

Work on Indigenous Aircraft Carrier, IAC 1, is progressing well and I am hopeful that the ship would join the Navy by 2020. Two Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels have been launched at Pipavav in Gujarat. In addition, Survey Vessels, Shallow Water Anti-Submarine Warfare Craft and Diving Support Vessels are in various stages of procurement.

Modernisation of the submarine arm is also well underway. We have accepted the delivery of Kalvari and we will formally commission her very soon. Trials of Khanderi, the second of the Kalvari Class, are also progressing satisfactorily. Measures are also underway to bolster the aviation arm of the Navy by induction of new fighters, surveillance aircraft and ship-borne helicopters.

It gives me great pleasure in informing you that the Indian Navy is at the threshold of joining a select league of navies capable of providing Submarine Search and Rescue in the IOR with two Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel Systems scheduled for induction next year.

Policy reforms by the Government, such as the Strategic Partnership Model and the Technology Development Fund, have emerged as catalysts for the Navy’s goal of self-reliance.

Indigenous development of sensor suites such as Next Generation SONAR, Combat Management System and Torpedo Fire Control System .is indeed encouraging.

Our Navy is progressing its indigenisation efforts in accordance with the ‘Indian Naval Indigenisation Plan 2015-30’, which has been augmented further by the ‘Naval Aviation Indigenisation Roadmap 2017-22’.

We have also identified about Rs 40,000 Crore worth of projects for participation by private shipyards. It is indeed heartening to note that

23 Indian private sector shipyards have qualified for participation in indigenous shipbuilding projects on the basis of their capacity, capability and infrastructure.

A key focus area for the Indian Navy this year has been on infrastructure development and I am pleased to inform you that we have made significant progress in developing Karwar as a futuristic naval base on the West coast of India. The execution of the next Phase of Project Seabird has commenced. Creation of a full-fledged Naval Dockyard and associated infrastructure to accommodate more number of ships, submarines and yard-craft will be undertaken during this phase.

From here:

Navy Day Press Conference at New Delhi: Full Address of Admiral Sunil Lanba

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Dec 2017 19:03

shaun wrote:
chetak wrote: These missile boats did what such missile boats were NEVER, EVER intended to do.
That was Indian ingenuity at its best , what even the Roosis could not believe.

So Indian ingenuity is needed to utilise Russki stuff. Are you saying, without our jugaad mindset, even the best Russian stuff wouldn't work?

If we need something that we're not getting elsewhere, or because we don't have the time or the know-how then I will agree that Russians have been good friends. But I'll not go beyond that and buy ordinary items given at throw-away prices to stop us from having indigenous products. It must also be remembered in this conversation that we've also bailed Russians out a few times. Su-30 is not just a shining example of cooperation but also of how we saved their asses. The purchase of new frigates with Ukrainian power units are another example of us saving them. I sincerely hope it will not become a case like INS Viky/Mig-29K where we're being reminded of our folly no end.

Often success of one Russian item or JV is held as a beacon for buying other things that may not be up to scratch. Ka226/LUH saga is an example. I can bet that the 100th desi-built Ka-226 will have less desi components than the first series production LUH. And, I'll bet once 100 Ka226 and LUH are built you'll have fewer Ka226 flight-worthy that LUH.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 12 Dec 2017 20:00

JTull wrote:
shaun wrote:
That was Indian ingenuity at its best , what even the Roosis could not believe.
So Indian ingenuity is needed to utilise Russki stuff. Are you saying, without our jugaad mindset, even the best Russian stuff wouldn't work?

If we need something that we're not getting elsewhere, or because we don't have the time or the know-how then I will agree that Russians have been good friends. But I'll not go beyond that and buy ordinary items given at throw-away prices to stop us from having indigenous products. It must also be remembered in this conversation that we've also bailed Russians out a few times. Su-30 is not just a shining example of cooperation but also of how we saved their asses. The purchase of new frigates with Ukrainian power units are another example of us saving them. I sincerely hope it will not become a case like INS Viky/Mig-29K where we're being reminded of our folly no end.

Often success of one Russian item or JV is held as a beacon for buying other things that may not be up to scratch. Ka226/LUH saga is an example. I can bet that the 100th desi-built Ka-226 will have less desi components than the first series production LUH. And, I'll bet once 100 Ka226 and LUH are built you'll have fewer Ka226 flight-worthy that LUH.

our ability to utilize and exploit assets in ways that are unexpectedly innovative while overcoming system limitations in ways that the original designers never imagined in their wildest dreams is the key.

IN knows the limitations and the difficulties in using these systems and is not starry eyed and blind to their flaws.

But at the same time, it is better to acknowledge the bitter fact, that sometimes, our options are so severely limited and constrained in ways that cannot be discussed by the govt in public.

when the vicky deal went through, both countries were in a really bad place. We were committed without any alternatives and they were overextended in ways that simply had no easy solutions.

war and weapon systems are logistically fragile and need robust, dependable and proven supply chain linkages in place.

Without this, it's just so much smoke being blown with no end in sight.

No parts, no jig jig.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 13 Dec 2017 01:18

arun wrote:THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN INDIAN NAVAL DOCTRINE : Assessing the Likely Usefulness of the Flattop in an Indo-Pakistani War Scenario :

US Naval War College

Most experts argue that Pakistan’s undersea capabilities are particularly ominous.
43 Diesel-electric submarines (SSKs), such as Pakistan’s two Hashmats and
the three newer Khalids, can operate virtually undetectably, thereby representing
a grave threat to surface forces. However, this is provided the submarine manages
to detect and track its target in the first place. Owing to their limited speed, SSKs
will act essentially as mobile minefields, and in this capacity it will be a tall order
for Pakistani submarines even to find the Indian CBG, unless cued exogenously.
This is because the northern Arabian Sea is a vast area for a few relatively slowmoving
vessels to cover. While cues provided by Islamabad’s maritime patrol or
airborne early warning (AEW) planes certainly might help locate the enemy carrier,
communications and coordination between aircraft and a submerged platform
tend to be difficult. Furthermore, while Pakistani submarines could lie in
wait along the Indian carrier’s route, successful positioning is highly contingent
on accurate intelligence

Something I've been pointing out to the forum submarine champions. SSKs score against carriers only in exercises,
where the rules will be skewed to make it easier for the SSK to detect and track carriers. How otherwise can an SSK track
down a CBG in the vast expanse of an ocean without enormous amounts of luck ? Even nuke subs with their endurance should
find it extremely hard to track down a CBG, the area that needs to be covered is vast. It seems this probability can be skewed in the
submarine's favour through only intelligence or external input of some sort.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Dec 2017 01:27

JTull wrote:...Ka226/LUH saga is an example. I can bet that the 100th desi-built Ka-226 will have less desi components than the first series production LUH. And, I'll bet once 100 Ka226 and LUH are built you'll have fewer Ka226 flight-worthy that LUH.

The 100th desi-built KA-226 will likely have less desi components than the first one. This is not a throwaway line. The Russian strategy will be to blame any design issues on desi components or sourced from other than Russia and crank up pressure to import components for 'quality reasons'.

You may recall that initially they would not even let us fit locally made tires on the SU30MKI claiming it would void the warranty.

We have a romantic view of the Russkie relationship—conflating them with FSU. True they have helped with sub tech. But that should be a standalone commercial transaction. It is not a favor that compels us to make it up to them by buying stuff that is second rate and/or not wanted.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Dec 2017 03:56

I think it has become fashionable to disparage Russian-ware here. It's like preaching to a choir.

Anybody wants to see how the TFTA Western-ware fare without those TFTA maintenance packages? Sometimes, they don't fare well at TFTA prices. Green pine anyone?

Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us? How many agreements have we signed to even get to use software defined radios?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Dec 2017 04:37

In retrospect, Sov/Ru weaponry which was originally meant to meet their performance parameters, in the Indian context , were put through their paces with results that led to improvements being made incrementally.The innovative usage of these systems by India helped spur even better variants from the OEM, with the feedback and input from our side.The wars with Pak saw these systems in real action and the performance of the various weaponry was critically evaluated.

The Osa boats and their Styx missiles did their job.Our innovation was to tow them to Karachi.Adm. Gorshkov reportedly did a jig in the Kremlin when he heard the news of the attack on Karachi.He later complimented my kinsman saying "your boys taught us new tricks.." or words to that effect.

Again with the MKIs, MBTs, and BMos in particular the improvements have made the capabilities of the original even more lethal.But we must remember that we were unable to produce these basic platforms ourselves for decades and though Sov./Ru weaponry may have been less sophisticated earlier than Western products, they were simpler to operate, much cheaper and equally lethal.Today the qualitativd level of Ru products has improved enormously.Take the Flankers for instance.MKIs and SU-35s arguably the best in the sky barring thd F-22. The West has no equal to Klub/Kalibir let alone BMos, barring sub-sonic Tomahawk.No equal to the 200km rocket torpedo Shkval and from next year the hypersonic 3M32 Zircon naval missile to be aboard Kirov class nuclear powered cruisers will be the first such weapon fielded.Not to mention the 2500km N-tipped UW torpedo planned to be an unstoppable weapon.

MI-26Ts are still the largest helos in existence, the SOV era AN-124s the largest transports , production now being restarted by the UKR with China ,in a JV,and Sov. era Typhoon subs , the largest SSBNs ever built are being refitted as SSGNs.

Right now the most important aspect of the mil. relationship is the v.generous assistance being given to our N-sub programmes run by the PMO.We have much ground yet to cover and trust that the steady progress in operating Akulas and building Arihants continues without any hitches.If these programmes and acquisitions continue as planned, then in a decade's time we would've caught up with China , perhaps even surpassing it in quality of N-subs, even now with our Akula lease/s.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Dec 2017 05:49

Indranil wrote:I think it has become fashionable to disparage Russian-ware here. It's like preaching to a choir.

Anybody wants to see how the TFTA Western-ware fare without those TFTA maintenance packages? Sometimes, they don't fare well at TFTA prices. Green pine anyone?

Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us? How many agreements have we signed to even get to use software defined radios?

Really? I thought that disparaging Indian products was the rage? And since only competition for Indian products is Rooosi maal, it is quite obvious that there will be an exchange of attacks.

But India has to decide. Is it worthwhile to have a robust MIC or to send its job overseas and remain a power in name needing the approval of several vendor nations before exercising sovereign foreign policy. Philly has already disclosed his Natasha issues - et tu Indy?

Remember if you do as Philly wants, you will remain in colonial times - all money and good jobs exported to Roos or Israel or France or Umreeka, So India will remain a third rate power with poverty retaining its hold

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 13 Dec 2017 06:27

Indranil wrote: Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us?

They let us do that as it doesn't meet our needs without the modifications. They recognize that and instead of fixing it, let us mod it to meet our needs. Its not out of goodness of their heart. They leave the headache of integration to us so that they are not held responsible for making it all work.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Dec 2017 08:25

Vivek K wrote:
Indranil wrote:I think it has become fashionable to disparage Russian-ware here. It's like preaching to a choir.

Anybody wants to see how the TFTA Western-ware fare without those TFTA maintenance packages? Sometimes, they don't fare well at TFTA prices. Green pine anyone?

Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us? How many agreements have we signed to even get to use software defined radios?
Really? I thought that disparaging Indian products was the rage? And since only competition for Indian products is Rooosi maal, it is quite obvious that there will be an exchange of attacks.

But India has to decide. Is it worthwhile to have a robust MIC or to send its job overseas and remain a power in name needing the approval of several vendor nations before exercising sovereign foreign policy. Philly has already disclosed his Natasha issues - et tu Indy?

Remember if you do as Philly wants, you will remain in colonial times - all money and good jobs exported to Roos or Israel or France or Umreeka, So India will remain a third rate power with poverty retaining its hold

Vivekji - a humble request. There is literally nobody on the board, let alone it being fashionable, who willy nilly would like to disparage homegrown products. I think every single one of us would like to see more nummbers of such products being produced and used. So you are preachig to the choir. But out there in the non brf jingo world it is indeed fashionable to do so. Perhaps a resounding article on your part about this obnoxious habit, as Ramanaji had suggested should be written and tweeted ad nauseum by all Brfites.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2017 08:48

a CBGs general locality can easily detected by LRMP ac using active radar at long range, passive ESM means like detecting the ship or awacs radars ... and its size and current heading estimated. more frequent the contacts better chances of positioning a SSK ambush or letting a SSN chase it down. SSKs cannot maintain even 20 knot submerged for more than a few hours until batteries run out and are slower on the surface.

look at how the british led convoys to murmansk were tracked by luftwaffe FW Condor LRMP birds who then contact the U-boat captains to gather in a swarm for the ambush. the convoys used to change course often to improve their chances and any ship that could not maintain the convoy speed or was damaged was left behind without help to its inevitable fate as anyone loitering to help would be attacked by the U-boats too. corvettes and destroyers protected the convoy from u-boats as best as they could.

alistair maclean's best work HMS Ulysses is about the struggles of one such convoy. there are other books on it.

it was only after the radar equipped PBY catalina and B24 liberator were introduced in large numbers that atlantic ocean became a graveyard of u-boats. these 1st gen radars could still pick the snorkel of a u-boat from 20kms out and depth charges were immediately dropped. towards end of war the latest u-boats had a AIP of sorts called "walther closed cycle system" but too late and too little as the U-boat pens in france were destroyed by british Lancaster bombers using 5 ton "tallboy" bombs designed by barnes wallis. ... the first bunker buster of sorts long before the gbu28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_( ... _dockyards

the tirpitz was also sunk by 3 hits of this tallboy from lancaster. that squadron was the elite and used only for such special targets using the 5t tallboy and 10t grandslam

shades of ODS imagery. a 11 feet think concrete roof of U-boat pen smashed by a tallboy

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2017 09:02

Cheen has also deployed trios of naval ELINT sats in closely spaced parallel orbits over the western pacific for the hunter role.

the killing will be done by various means including hypersonic ASMs, torpedoes and ASBMs.

all I see here is complacent people bragging about the p8 and brahmos. one has to look at the overall picture.

if these satellites and OTH radar for ship tracking can be made to work, which after enough time and money it will, Cheen can target our in-motion naval units in the bay of bengal from deep in the wooded ravines of Yunnan itself with zero warning and almost no chance of locating the road mobile Telars for a counterstrike by GLCMs from our NE.

thinking like a PLAN admiral, denying us the bay of bengal as our own secure "pond" and keeping us anxious and on a nervous mode will be a great strategic win for cheen. if they can get a Djibouti type based near Rangoon it will be game over. hordes of PLAN ships and subs will be transiting and lurking all around our A&N islands and off Balasore.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Dec 2017 09:10

we need to get our thumbs out and work on Malaysia and Indonesia to get us basing and replenishments rights on rim of the SCS and conduct regular FONOPS(freedom of navigation ops) as massa calls it all over the SCS. nothing drives them nuts more than enemies lurking around their crown jewel the hainan island SSBN base

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Dec 2017 09:26

Singha wrote:we need to get our thumbs out and work on Malaysia and Indonesia to get us basing and replenishments rights on rim of the SCS and conduct regular FONOPS(freedom of navigation ops) as massa calls it all over the SCS. nothing drives them nuts more than enemies lurking around their crown jewel the hainan island SSBN base

Both are seeking preferential and unrestricted entry into the Indian markets.

The GoI is not about to permit this at the cost of local players and industry.

We have to wait and see how it goes.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 09:34

Indranil wrote:I think it has become fashionable to disparage Russian-ware here. It's like preaching to a choir.

Anybody wants to see how the TFTA Western-ware fare without those TFTA maintenance packages? Sometimes, they don't fare well at TFTA prices. Green pine anyone?

Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us? How many agreements have we signed to even get to use software defined radios?

Are ( a guess) you referring to the AN/TPQ-37 WLR, as versus the Green Pine. Green Pine was used as the basis for our home-grown LRTR which arrangement worked out well for all parties concerned.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 09:39

Cybaru wrote:
Indranil wrote: Anybody letting us modify the aircrafts, ships, submarines as the Russians are letting us?
They let us do that as it doesn't meet our needs without the modifications. They recognize that and instead of fixing it, let us mod it to meet our needs. Its not out of goodness of their heart. They leave the headache of integration to us so that they are not held responsible for making it all work.

So true. They give us a 80% product and watch from the sidelines as we fall over ourselves trying to fix their missing bits. And then take all the credit for the hard work we do in making the aircraft or tank or whatever work to begin with. So if IAF beats USAF in some exercise, no mention of ROE or Indian ingenuity in tactics. Its always how great Russian gear was. If anything doesnt work, those blasted Indians can't do it and then comments about how India is no longer appreciating Russia and all sorts of snide commentary about our programs.
Yes, behind the scenes there has been some really positive cooperation, but we have paid in hard cash for that. As our economy grows (and is not mismanaged), the line of folks who want to work with us, will steadily increase. Russia simply doesnt seem to understand that without proper service and spares, they will lose their hold on the Indian market.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Dec 2017 10:03

KrishnaK wrote:
arun wrote:THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN INDIAN NAVAL DOCTRINE : Assessing the Likely Usefulness of the Flattop in an Indo-Pakistani War Scenario :

US Naval War College

Most experts argue that Pakistan’s undersea capabilities are particularly ominous.
43 Diesel-electric submarines (SSKs), such as Pakistan’s two Hashmats and
the three newer Khalids, can operate virtually undetectably, thereby representing
a grave threat to surface forces. However, this is provided the submarine manages
to detect and track its target in the first place. Owing to their limited speed, SSKs
will act essentially as mobile minefields, and in this capacity it will be a tall order
for Pakistani submarines even to find the Indian CBG, unless cued exogenously.
This is because the northern Arabian Sea is a vast area for a few relatively slowmoving
vessels to cover. While cues provided by Islamabad’s maritime patrol or
airborne early warning (AEW) planes certainly might help locate the enemy carrier,
communications and coordination between aircraft and a submerged platform
tend to be difficult. Furthermore, while Pakistani submarines could lie in
wait along the Indian carrier’s route, successful positioning is highly contingent
on accurate intelligence
Something I've been pointing out to the forum submarine champions. SSKs score against carriers only in exercises,
where the rules will be skewed to make it easier for the SSK to detect and track carriers. How otherwise can an SSK track
down a CBG in the vast expanse of an ocean without enormous amounts of luck ? Even nuke subs with their endurance should
find it extremely hard to track down a CBG, the area that needs to be covered is vast. It seems this probability can be skewed in the
submarine's favour through only intelligence or external input of some sort.

A carrier group can fairly easily be tracked by satellite and it cannot hide. Along with many other countries, we also have such capabilities.

Most non Indian men of war are anyway tracked by the IN in its area of interest

The sub can be vectored to intercept the carrier if it is fortuitously placed in relation to the carrier

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 13 Dec 2017 10:52

The CBG article is written by some naval academy kiddo. His numbers are all over the place, JF17 and Mirage have combat radius of 1200km and Su 30 MKI has 1000km combat radius.

Keeps talking about some mythical A2/AD edifice that Pakistan posses making it’s entire coastline impregnable but does not define it. What would those MPAs would do but to run with their tails tucked under their wings when they see a carrier and its supersonic fighters coming for them. MPAs are great for terrorizing surface ships or even subs but it’s nothing but a death wish for them to ever encounter a CBG with fighters on combat patrol. Having a carrier with a squadron of 4+ gen aircraft in the back makes every ship in that entire theater so much more capable, informed and secured that CHG doesn’t even need to directly fight anything.

Now no one buys a small carrier to use it to conquer an entire nation by itself but one can write a very compelling article beating up this straw man argument of one’e own creation.