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.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3344
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 22 Apr 2018 21:49

I dont understand why the debate focuses on IRL (i.e. RBU) as a trade off to more LRSAMs. The latter has a small footprint and requires minimal deck penetration compared to Brahmos. IMHO IN could have installed more LRSAMs if it wanted to while still retaining the 2 IRLs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Apr 2018 21:51

Afaik they still need manual reload one deck level down?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1571
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srin » 22 Apr 2018 21:52

Even if LRSAMs are expensive, why not have extra silos that are empty most of the time?

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3344
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 22 Apr 2018 21:55

Any comments on the asw SWC? It was the biggest "reveal" this defexpo?

http://www.janes.com/article/79471/indi ... -programme

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3344
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 22 Apr 2018 21:57

Singha wrote:Afaik they still need manual reload one deck level down?


Happy to be corrected but I believe manual reloads for LR-SAM is a myth. Obviously reloads should be possible from the top, but how would sailors do that out in the sea without benefit of cranes and other equipment.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 23 Apr 2018 05:13

srin wrote:Even if LRSAMs are expensive, why not have extra silos that are empty most of the time?

Each system costs about 150 million I believe it includes launcher, fire control systems and missiles (+ spares). Not sure you can customize it to have just launcher and how much that makes up the overall cost .

If it is universal launcher you can atleast fit additional brahmos or nirbhay, with launcher tied to only Barak-8 not sure if makes sense to buy the launcher without any missiles.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 23 Apr 2018 06:39

How much information about battle do we get from narratives of real battles and how much from video games?

The difference as I see it is that all ships and aircraft have "expendables" that get expended and cannot be earned by mouse clicks. Food, water, fuel, lubricating oils, spare parts that wear out, disposables that get consumed and yes, missiles and ammunition. The length of time, radius of action and number of targets a machine can engage is restricted by all these factors. Piling on the missiles (visible to us) with no information on other factors is simply guesswork.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2018 07:24

Reg. the ASW corvettes, I prefer the word inshore instead of shallow water, we have to compare the design with what it is replacing.The Pauk/Abhay class was a pocket "sub-chaser",based upon the Tarantula hull with a top speed of 35+kts.It had a VDS dipping sonar at the stern, the same as used by the KA-28 helo.See how cleverly the Sovs. standardised hulls and sonars.

As for armament, they were very well equipped with a 76mm AK-176 DP main gun, 1X 30mm gatling, 1X4 SA-N-8 SAM( 16 Iglas),2X5 RBU 1200 RLs with 30 RGB-12 rockets,4 X 1
TTs with 2 SET-65E ASW torpedoes and 2 53-65KE anti-ship torpedoes.They also had 2 DC racks with 6 dc each.
A range of 2000-3000nm and an endurance of 10 days.
All this in a vessel of only 425t!

Now the planned replacement is much larger at around 700t+, but appears to have no improvement in armament as can be seen from the pic, except that a single MBU with greater range replaces the 2 RBUs.As I said earlier, a great chance has been missed by not having a helo deck and even a hangar could've been thrown in for peanuts.The presence of an ASW light helo aboard would dramatically increase the ASW capability of the vessel , able to triangulate the sub's location with the corvette and prosecute the sub at much greater ranges than that of the weapons aboard the vessel.

No idea what SAM's are provided for anti-missile defence. In this new vessel, almost double the size of the Pauk, 2 gun/missile LW mounts could've been included.The TTs could even be triple tubes for LW torpedoes or 2X2 as before with heavier fish.Either a TAS or VDS should appear at the stern, but I have serious doubts about her speed looking at her hull profile.In my opinion, a very disappointing design at face, but one hopes that the actual vessel will be improved in many respects.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2018 07:50

PS:Apol.Friedman's book not Polmar.They're both " Norman's though!

The USN retd. ASROC a long time ago.Sov. torpedoes range improved hugely, their subs got quiter too. Doctrine is different.They have such a large number of ASW helos, shipborne sonars, CBGs escorted by at least 1 SSN, that an ASROC missile takes up space better utilised by an LRCM like Tomahawk.US DDGs will have at least 80 cells for various missiles of choice.The US is now investing heavily in long- endurance unmanned ASW craft which can stay operational for at least month, able to continuously track an enemy sub and pass on its data to other platforms.The way to go.

I am not sure why the Medvedka ASW system was not fitted.It is a vast improvement over an MBU and both can be fitted on a small corvette of the designated size.Designed by the same MBU team, it uses an unguided rocket booster to launch a LW ASW torpedo.Range upto to 25km and depth down to 500m.It comes with a 4 round launcher.Claimed to be superior to Western equiv like ASROC, etc.The MBU can still be used for closer attacks, torpedo and missile defence using decoy rounds.

Another interesting fact for the Udav anti-T system that uses the RBU/MBU rounds.Hit probability 90% for straight runners and around 70% for wake homers.
Last edited by Philip on 23 Apr 2018 07:58, edited 1 time in total.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby titash » 23 Apr 2018 07:57

Philip wrote:Reg. the ASW corvettes, I prefer the word inshore instead of shallow water, we have to compare the design with what it is replacing.The Pauk/Abhay class was a pocket "sub-chaser",based upon the Tarantula hull with a top speed of 35+kts.It had a VDS dipping sonar at the stern, the same as used by the KA-28 helo.See how cleverly the Sovs. standardised hulls and sonars.


This one is likewise - the GRSE design leverages the waterjets integration experience from the Car Nicobar class, and uses an Abhay hull mounted sonar...derived from the HUMSA and much better suited to our local water conditions. Will be interesting to see if the Mihir/LFDS developed for the ALH is also ported over - no reason it can't be.

Philip wrote:As for armament, they were very well equipped with a 76mm AK-176 DP main gun, 1X 30mm gatling, 1X4 SA-N-8 SAM( 16 Iglas),2X5 RBU 1200 RLs with 30 RGB-12 rockets,4 X 1TTs with 2 SET-65E ASW torpedoes and 2 53-65KE anti-ship torpedoes.They also had 2 DC racks with 6 dc each.
A range of 2000-3000nm and an endurance of 10 days.All this in a vessel of only 425t!


The armament is actually more suited to it's role. The RBU-6000 or IRL is much better at its job than the RBU-1200s of the Pauk class, and is made locally. The Pauk class had 4 HWTs but the Janata class has 6 LWTs...so 2 more rounds (a 50% increase in payload at an expense of range)...and this makes sense because they are shallow water ships that will be primarily used for harbor/EEZ protection from pakistani SSKs. Note that the Janata class is actually bigger at 700T vs. 450T, so will have better endurance and (ideally) better seakeeping. More importantly, it will be built in large numbers...16 if I recall correctly.

There is really no use for the 76mm or 30mm cannon or a SAM on these ships. There are enough OPVs and fast patrol boats to deal with smugglers, pirates etc. Likewise these ships will operate within range of shore based fighter cover - no pakistani surface ship or aircraft will bother them. Likewise firing a anti-ship missile is more dangerous for an SSK in shallow water that is trying to stay hidden

Lastly, minelaying is historically a bigger deterrent to sneaky SSKs than depth charging after detection. These ships are larger and more numerous and can swiftly put down a minefield

Philip wrote:Now the planned replacement is much larger at around 700t+, but appears to have no improvement in armament as can be seen from the pic, except that a single MBU with greater range replaces the 2 RBUs.As I said earlier, a great chance has been missed by not having a helo deck and even a hangar could've been thrown in for peanuts.The presence of an ASW light helo aboard would dramatically increase the ASW capability of the vessel , able to triangulate the sub's location with the corvette and prosecute the sub at much greater ranges than that of the weapons aboard the vessel.


There is no room for a helo at under 1000 tons. Make that 2000 tons if you want a hanger...there's your Saryu class OPV :-)

In any case, the open helipad is a waste of real estate - better to carry mines or oil; also, shore based ASW Dhruvs are being ordered in quantity (16 under order the last time I checked).

Philip wrote:No idea what SAM's are provided for anti-missile defence. In this new vessel, almost double the size of the Pauk, 2 gun/missile LW mounts could've been included.The TTs could even be triple tubes for LW torpedoes or 2X2 as before with heavier fish.Either a TAS or VDS should appear at the stern, but I have serious doubts about her speed looking at her hull profile.In my opinion, a very disappointing design at face, but one hopes that the actual vessel will be improved in many respects.


Again - you need space/volume for "staying put"...food/water/oil/mines/reloads for RBU-6000/depth charges. Like the Spruance class in the 70s, this hull form and loadout is being optimized for a certain specification...not necessarily the cold-war russian specifications of expendable ships that can cram/fire-off as many weapons before they get sunk.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2018 08:11

I agree with the main gun.Overkill. A gun/missile CIWS system much better for missile protection. as these vessels may come under enemy sub-launched missile attack. These vessels will conduct ASW ops much beyond mere coastal duties as sub- launched missiles that Pak possesses , both Exocet and Harpoon and the Chin ones to come, could be fired from at least 100km away from the coastline against our principal bases, etc.

But I still maintain that a helo deck absence, easily possible even in the same design with slight mods, is a missed opportunity.The helos could bd based on land at the very least.It would give the vessel a far greater range and detection capability as mentioned earlier.A Medvedka LW ASW missile would increase the range of a LW torpedo by at least 20kms when compared with those torpedoes launched from the vessel.Imagine the huge increase of a torpedo dropped by the helo 50kms afar and beyond.The striking capability of the corvette increases dramatically.

16 corvettes is not a large number when you see how many bases, civvy ports and island territories we have to defend.We have to leverage our large CG assets and transform the OPVs into possessing some integral ASW capability.The CG should also be trained in MCM warfare and possess some MCM vessels.If the coastal defence for ASW and mine warfare is partly shared by the CG, it would release IN assets for greater offensive ops.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2018 08:29

PS.Look at the Visby class multi-role Swedish stealth corvettes.They're only 640t and have an open helo deck.
Their armament includes anti-ship missiles, SAMs, torpedoes, capable of mine warfare,etc.That is a design to emulate.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 23 Apr 2018 09:48

Philip wrote:PS.Look at the Visby class multi-role Swedish stealth corvettes.They're only 640t and have an open helo deck.
Their armament includes anti-ship missiles, SAMs, torpedoes, capable of mine warfare,etc.That is a design to emulate.



Really, how is the presence of the RBU helping the RCS of Indian ships.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 23 Apr 2018 15:32

^^^
If it was a big issue, they could easily add some form of stealthy shroud around the launchers.

Bulk of the system with reloads are below deck.
Image

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3344
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 23 Apr 2018 17:34

The smoke stack has consumed excessive deck space .... Could they have vent it below deck? Will also reduce IR signature and free up space for at least a chetak

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2522
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 23 Apr 2018 17:41

Saw INS Betwa over the weekend and she seemed to have completed her refit.

Old News from November
https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping- ... ed-mumbai/

The US-based salvage company Resolve Marine Group successfully completed the salvage of the vessel by systematically flooding and pumping the compartments.

Reports said the US firm rolled the vessel upright without using any external lifting mechanisms.

The majority of the machinery had already been removed from the vessel as the ship was undergoing major refit and the Resolve-led crew was able to patch and repair all damages within two months.


Older photos from November 2017
Image
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Apr 2018 23:07

The self defence torpedo should preferably be nuclear and home on the high pitched prop noise of inbound hwt

There is no point holding back in a war ... a tactical nuke ahould both crush the hwt and scare the crap out of the lurking sub

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22035
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2018 08:10

Delay in building ships, cost escalation hit Navy’s upgradation plans

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ne ... 650144.ece

Considerable delays have taken place in a number of projects of the navy. These include the P-15A, P-28, Indian Aircraft Carrier, the Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels, P-75, P-17A, etc. The delays have adversely impacted the exchequer,” said a senior Defence Ministry official, speaking on conditions of anonymity.

Referring to the delay in the case of P-28, the Kamorta-class corvettes, sources in the Ministry said the contract was signed on June 11, 2012, with GRSE at ₹7852.39 crore. The delivery schedule as per contract for the anti-submarine warfare corvette Kamorta was October 2012. The actual date of delivery was July 2014, a delay of 20 months.

In the case of Kadmatt corvette, the delivery schedule was contracted for July 2013. The actual date of delivery was November 2015, a delay of 28 months. With the Kiltan corvette, the delivery date was July 2014. The ship was delivered in October 2017, a delay of 39 months. As for the Kavaratti corvette, a tentative delivery date has been scheduled in December 2018.

Similar is the case with the P-75, contracted to MDL in October 2005, which has had a cost revision. Contracted at ₹18,798 crore, the first revision of ₹23,558.58 crore was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security in February 2010, and was later revised again to ₹25,737.44 crore and got the Committee's approval in July 2017.

Only one vessel of P-75 has been delivered so far, sources pointed out, with the lead vessel delayed by 57 months.

According to official figures placed in Parliament last month, the contract for P-15B was signed on January 28, 2011, with MDL at a project cost of ₹29643.74 crore. The likely date of delivery of the first vessel is March 2021.

In the case of P -17A, the contract was signed on February 20, 2015, with MDL and GRSE for ₹48,238.91 crore. The delivery of the lead ship is scheduled for August 2022.

Sources pointed out that in order to achieve the aspirational target of manufacturing 70 per cent of defence equipment indigenously, private shipyards need to be incentivised for the development of large scale R&D as well as manufacturing capabilities.



Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 24 Apr 2018 08:56

The abysmal delays in desi warship and sub production- (and here you can't blame the Russians!) a massive 57 months for Scorpenes, is why the extra 4 Talwar FFGs are being pursued with an urgency by the IN.The Chinese production rate of naval assets is simply staggering.A second 70K t CV built, started long after IAC-1 was laid down,2 more in the offing plus dozens of warships and subs.It appears that the Chinese may be planning for a 350- 400 ship navy with which it can numerically match or exceed the USN , and hugely outnumber the IN, particularly in the number of subs which will be its principal weapon of choice.
Last edited by Philip on 24 Apr 2018 10:17, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 24 Apr 2018 09:54

The solution to delayed production in Indian yard's is improved project management. And not throwing money to Russian yard's. For an inferior ship that cannot be purchased by the Russian Navy it self.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22035
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2018 10:15

Very Interesting is the Scorpene Submarine Delay since this was to be imported and made in india , Not only did it experienced 5 years of delay but also cost contracted from around $ 3 billion to final revised cost of more than $ 4 billion ...around 25 % rise in final cost is not a fixed cost model as they were claiming earlier from contracted fixed prices ....has to be because military inflation gallops

Similar is the case with the P-75, contracted to MDL in October 2005, which has had a cost revision. Contracted at ₹18,798 crore, the first revision of ₹23,558.58 crore was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security in February 2010, and was later revised again to ₹25,737.44 crore and got the Committee's approval in July 2017.

Only one vessel of P-75 has been delivered so far, sources pointed out, with the lead vessel delayed by 57 months.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 24 Apr 2018 10:19

The Run have built and bought the Adm.Grig. FFGs, the advanced version of the Talwars for their own navy. They operate 3,Pl.study your facts.The class has been used firing Kalibir missiles in Syria.At least 6 were planned but after the UKR spat arrived, the engines built in the UKR, no longer became available.Substitute engines are being planned for in Russia itself and one understands that a series of new marine engines are on the anvil.India has been interested in these FFGs as the UKR has no objections to supplying the engines for 2 incomplete vessels.
The IN wants these very powerful frigates, nothing is being shoved down its throats and may even build a few more beyond the first 2 +2.

PS: ODK- Saturn at Rybinsk of the United Eng. Corp. have already completed R&D for new 5th-gen. marine and gas turbine engines which are technologically far superior to tech of the '80s of the UKR engines, with much lower fuel consumption, etc.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 24 Apr 2018 10:45

Yeah, that's why these frigates don't have MFSTR. not will Russia allow for it to be fitted with during MLU.
When the navy waited for over 5 years for placing orders for p17a. Because they knew that the Shivalik as it stood will need to be updated.

But the talwar will have to be taken as the Russians were building them.

All the while domestic ship yard's are waiting for orders.

The p 17 order could have easily been split and a portion given to one of the Pvt yard's and the time frame for completion could have been reduced.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Apr 2018 11:05

Pratyush wrote:The solution to delayed production in Indian yard's is improved project management. And not throwing money to Russian yard's. For an inferior ship that cannot be purchased by the Russian Navy it self.

Yeah but you need a Hercules to clean out PSU stables. None forthcoming I'm afraid, not even 56 inch chaiwallah. so mother Russia remains and will remain default go to choice when things get desperate or unaffordable. Be it ad-hoc tincan purchases, su30s or ffgs.

Phucked up situation

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2018 11:49

its a chicken and egg problem. only when we build scale and build large lots of the same ship will economies of scale and fat tail of suppliers keep cost escalations and delays low . building 3 of each type gives the suppliers very little scope to scale up and invest much.

only heavy confirmed funding will give both IN and builders more headroom, not trickle funding which means navy is always in tension of obsolescence if they order more than 3 of a design

cheen is building some 17 confirmed of the Type52D with more in the pipeline, launching 3 into the water annually. which means 6 to 9 are in various stages of construction. the DDG51 story is well know.

on other side we have expensive white elephants like the horizon class (2 + 2) and Type45 daring class (6) and hobart class(3) .

to start with I suggest we build each class in 2 yards and confirmed orders of 9 minimum.

we need large numbers of 5000-9000t computer packed hulls. the old mantra of "good seakeeping" for a austere hut of a superstructure is hardly relevant....the unsightly Tico and its father the Spruance class operated just fine in the polar regions , the DDG51 is a wide fat hull design of 20m beam permitting good crew housing and wide magazines. we got to get rid of the racing yacht == more dharmic mentality and embrace new non-russi racing yacht ideas.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2018 11:56

the huge gap between our DDG-FFG nos and PLAN is increasing year after year.
the fig leaf of "half the PLAN needs to camp off taiwan" is just that , a pathetic fig leaf that will be flown to bits when their ECS and SCS fleets mass 50 large ships and steam through the sunda straits.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10037
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arun » 24 Apr 2018 14:24

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THREE CADET TRAINING SHIPS (CTS) FOR INDIAN NAVY:

Clicky


The specifications are pretty detailed and the RFI runs into 78 pages. The broad specifications are as follows.


Primary Role: Provide basic sea training to Naval Cadets

Secondary Role: Hospital Ship, Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR), Non-Combatant Evacuation Ops (NEO), SAR

Complement: 20 officers, 200 Cadets and 150 sailors

Accommodation: 110 percent of crew strength

Tonnage: 4000 (±15%) tons

Length: As per design

Beam: As per design

Draught: Not more than 4.5 m

Propulsion: 2 Diesel Engines, Twin Shaft with CPP with Bow Thruster

Max Speed: 20 kn

Eco Speed: 12-15 kn

Endurance: More than 60 days

Range: More than 7500 nm at 15 kn, without fuelling

ASW: Maareech (NA) . XBT with Sonic Ray Plotter

Gunnery: 01 x SRGM integrated with Lynx U2, 02 x AK 630 integrated with Lynx U2, 02 x Lynx U2, 02 x EOIRST integrated with CMS and capable of providing TD to Lynx U2 and SRCG

LIMO Capability: 02 x 12.7 mm SRCG, Acoustic Warning Device, Pedestal Mounted High Power Binoculars
Radar: 02 x ‘I’ Band COTS Navigation Radars

IFF: Mk XII (A) (or later) Transponder

ESM: 01 x ESM Suite (0.175 GHz to 40 GHz)

Communication: Communication equipment for radio and SATCOM in all bands operated by IN CMS Mod CMS with Link II Mod III Data Link System (Small Ship Version)/ NG Data Link

Aviation: 1 x NUH in Hangar and 1 x NUH on deck. Helo Deck to cater for Stage Through Operations of MRH

Classification Standard: The ship should be built under the rules and regulations of IHQ MoD (N) approved Classification Societies.
Last edited by arun on 24 Apr 2018 14:25, edited 1 time in total.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2341
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 24 Apr 2018 14:25

South Korean yard again offers to build minesweepers in India

South Korean company Kangnam Corporation has responded to India’s expression of interest to build minesweepers in the country under a Rs 32,640 crore programme, a senior government official said on Tuesday, after an earlier deal failed on the grounds of high costs.

The government issued an expression of interest on March 21 after earlier negotiations with Busan-based Kangnam to build 12 mine-countermeasure vessels (MCMVs) at the state-owned Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) collapsed at the final stage.

“Kangnam has responded to the EoI and we are expecting Italian yard Intermarine and maybe a few more shipbuilders to respond,” said GSL chairman Rear Admiral (retd) Shekhar Mital.

Foreign shipbuilders can respond to the expression of interest by May 10.

This is India’s third attempt in a decade to strengthen its navy’s mine warfare capabilities. Navies deploy minesweepers to secure harbours by locating and destroying mines.

As reported by the Hindustan Times on January 8, talks with Kangnam failed the last time as the two sides were unable to resolve commercial complications. Kangnam had competed with Intermarine for the project.

The government scrapped a deal in 2014 to build minesweepers in India in partnership with Kangnam, amid allegations that the South Korean firm had hired middlemen to swing things in its favour.

The navy’s present mine counter-measure force consists of six vessels bought from the erstwhile Soviet Union in the late 1970s. It requires at least 24 minesweepers to secure major harbours in the country, navy officials said.

The scenario is likely to worsen in the coming years as the existing minesweeper fleet is on its way to be decommissioned this year.

The navy would be without a single minesweeper till 2021, warned a March 2017 parliamentary report on the alarming decline in naval force levels. With the programme being delayed further, the navy is likely to be without minesweepers even beyond 2021.

The construction of the first vessel was supposed to begin in April 2018 and deliveries of all the 12 minesweepers were to be completed between 2021 and 2026.

GSL has spent hundreds of crores on creating an infrastructure to kick off construction of the vessels, which are expected to have 60% indigenous content.

Facilities have been created for building glass-reinforced plastic hulls, a design that reduces the ship’s magnetic signature and allows safer navigation through waters that are mined. These underwater weapons can detonate on contact, or be activated by magnetic and acoustic signatures.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2018 23:15

Singha wrote:the huge gap between our DDG-FFG nos and PLAN is increasing year after year.
the fig leaf of "half the PLAN needs to camp off taiwan" is just that , a pathetic fig leaf that will be flown to bits when their ECS and SCS fleets mass 50 large ships and steam through the sunda straits.

Not just that, but their ships pack a lot more firepower, especially SAMs. Just look at the Type 55 specs. It has 112 VLS cells in total. Our new classes like P-15B and P-17A have improved sensors and stealth shaping compared to the P-15A and P-17 but don't seem to improve on the firepower front.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 25 Apr 2018 01:21

Problem is slow pace at which vessels get fitted for example construction for visakhapatnam barely made any progress in last 1+ year the latest pics showed just radar housing was fitted but other than that ship fitment is moving snails pace.

Philip wrote:India has been interested in these FFGs as the UKR has no objections to supplying the engines for 2 incomplete vessels.
The IN wants these very powerful frigates, nothing is being shoved down its throats and may even build a few more beyond the first 2 +2.

The deal is more of a political move to appease both Russia and also do it under the guise of made in India. I don't mind buying 4 Talwar outright from Russian SYs since we need surface combatants and though they overpriced for the capability they offer we can live with that as stop gap measure.

But building it locally is not an easy task by any means. These vessels were designed to be build by Russian Shipyards, moving the whole the construction to shipyard (GSL) which has not build a vessel this size or complicated is a big red alert, and this is a dated design there is no improved talwar down the road.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 615
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Will » 25 Apr 2018 01:39

Time shipyards like L&T are given orders for major combatants. The IN needs to boost its destroyer and frigate count besides submarines to be able to compete with the Chinese.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 25 Apr 2018 02:04

John wrote:Problem is slow pace at which vessels get fitted for example construction for visakhapatnam barely made any progress in last 1+ year the latest pics showed just radar housing was fitted but other than that ship fitment is moving snails pace.

Philip wrote:India has been interested in these FFGs as the UKR has no objections to supplying the engines for 2 incomplete vessels.
The IN wants these very powerful frigates, nothing is being shoved down its throats and may even build a few more beyond the first 2 +2.

The deal is more of a political move to appease both Russia and also do it under the guise of made in India. I don't mind buying 4 Talwar outright from Russian SYs since we need surface combatants and though they overpriced for the capability they offer we can live with that as stop gap measure.

But building it locally is not an easy task by any means. These vessels were designed to be build by Russian Shipyards, moving the whole the construction to shipyard (GSL) which has not build a vessel this size or complicated is a big red alert, and this is a dated design there is no improved talwar down the road.


hows india going to buy anything Russian judging how the S400 deal is going through ??

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 25 Apr 2018 02:37

Singha wrote:its a chicken and egg problem. only when we build scale and build large lots of the same ship will economies of scale and fat tail of suppliers keep cost escalations and delays low . building 3 of each type gives the suppliers very little scope to scale up and invest much.

only heavy confirmed funding will give both IN and builders more headroom, not trickle funding which means navy is always in tension of obsolescence if they order more than 3 of a design

cheen is building some 17 confirmed of the Type52D with more in the pipeline, launching 3 into the water annually. which means 6 to 9 are in various stages of construction. the DDG51 story is well know.

on other side we have expensive white elephants like the horizon class (2 + 2) and Type45 daring class (6) and hobart class(3) .

to start with I suggest we build each class in 2 yards and confirmed orders of 9 minimum.

we need large numbers of 5000-9000t computer packed hulls. the old mantra of "good seakeeping" for a austere hut of a superstructure is hardly relevant....the unsightly Tico and its father the Spruance class operated just fine in the polar regions , the DDG51 is a wide fat hull design of 20m beam permitting good crew housing and wide magazines. we got to get rid of the racing yacht == more dharmic mentality and embrace new non-russi racing yacht ideas.


the few numbers mean less numbers go near obsoletion unless they are built faster in which case there are higher numbers to ensure economies of scale ..paradox ? but IN improves on each class , so its not necessarily bad as long as enough numbers of different classes are there.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 681
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby jaysimha » 25 Apr 2018 17:06

Ministry of Defence
Commissioning of Third Ship of Landing Craft Utility Mk-IV ‘IN LCU L53’ (GRSE Yard 2094) at port Blair- 25 Apr 18
Posted On: 25 APR 2018 4:45PM by PIB Delhi

The third ship of the Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Mk-IV project was inducted into the Indian Navy today at Port Blair. The ship was commissioned as INLCU L53 by Vice Admiral Bimal Verma, AVSM, ADC, Commander-in-Chief A&N Command. Designed and built by Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), Kolkata, the ship showcases the immense potential of the country’s indigenous ship building capability and is in consonance with the national goal of ‘Make in India’.

LCU MK-IV ship is an amphibious ship with a displacement of 830 Tons and is capable of transporting combat equipment such as Main Battle Tanks Arjun, T72 and other Armoured Vehicles. The ship is fitted with state-of-the-art equipment and advanced systems such as the Integrated Bridge System (IBS) and the Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS). The indigenous CRN 91 Gun with Stabilised Optronic Pedestal provides the ship the requisite offensive capability for undertaking patrolling in addition.

The ship, commanded by Lt Cdr Vikas Anand, has a complement of five officers and 45 sailors. Capable of carrying 160 troops in addition, the ships would be based in the Andaman and Nicobar Command bolstering the Command’s capability in undertaking multi role activities such as beaching operations, HADR, search/ rescue, and supply and replenishment of distant islands.

The remaining five ships of the project are in an advanced stage of construction and are scheduled to be inducted into Indian Navy over the next year and half. Induction of these ships will contribute to the nation’s maritime security needs and would accomplish India’s quest for self-reliance in shipbuilding.

__________________________________________________________________________________

DKS/AC 31/18





(Release ID: 1530214) Visitor Counter : 29

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 25 Apr 2018 23:09

the masterpiece of packaging is the KDX3 sejong the great class DDG. it packs 128 cells in a form factor much smaller than the Type55

this it does by using the middle band of helicopter hanger for 80 cells ... with 2 helos still parked along the sides ! the benefits of a wide 20+ m beam vs the 17.5m of P15A - a full 10 feet narrower.

Image

Armament:
1 × 5 inch (127 mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
1 × 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
1 × RAM Block 1 CIWS
4 × 4 SSM-700K Haeseong anti-ship missiles
80-cell Mk 41 VLS SM-2 Block IIIB/IV
48-cell K-VLS Hyunmoo III land attack cruise missiles :shock:
K-ASROC Red Shark in (VLS)
2 × 3 K745 LW Blue Shark torpedoes

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63581
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 25 Apr 2018 23:12

its standard 21inch size and 1.5 tonish
The Hyunmoo-3C is deployed on ROK Navy KDX-III destroyers, Incheon-class frigates, and Type 214 submarines (KSS-II) with vertical launch systems. With a range of over 1,000 km, South Korea classifies the Hunmoo 3C as a ‘strategic weapon’ under control of the Joint Chiefs, rather than the ROK Navy

packing 48 of them is a great thing. a couple of ships could launch a significant attack.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6978
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2018 00:20

I will proxy hakeem here.

Why don't we trust the Indian design bureau headed by Indian Nevy officers to know what is best for India?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 26 Apr 2018 09:26

Because we know that full class of ships built in single digits over 10 to 15 years. Where the compititon is building that many ships per year. With same capicity

That is where the dhoti shiver comes from.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 26 Apr 2018 09:30

Budget woes preclude more VLS modules.If we want an 80- 100 module vessel, instead of 3 ships the IN may get only 2 sanctioned! Totally agree about large numbers in orders.At least 6 of a class.Pip/RDEL about to close shop.So much for supporting put. yards.L&T better managed keeps delivering but needs to be rewarded with real orders that will keep it busy for at least 2 decades.

Better getting all MCM vessels built in SoKo at speed.Second batch can be built in India at Goa wherever.
We need at least 24+ MCM vessels.At one time we operated Yevgenya inshore, Natya and even legacy ex-Brit. MCM vessels numbering over 2 doz.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3966
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kartik » 26 Apr 2018 23:24

From Janes
Image
Indian naval shipbuilder Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDSL) unveiled a scale model of the Project 17A (P-17A) frigate at the Defexpo 2018 exhibition.

MDSL is building four ships in the class, while the remaining three are being constructed by Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE).

The P-17A platform has been described as an enlarged, stealthier variant of the three-ship Project 17 (P-17) Shivalik class frigates. The new ships are 149 m long, with a beam of 17.8 m, a draught of 5.15 m, a displacement of 6,673 tonnes, and a crew complement of 226.

The platform will be powered by two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines, and two MAN 12V28/33D STC diesels driving two shafts in a combined diesel or gas (CODOG) arrangement. Top speed is given as 28 kt, while range is 5,500 n miles at 16–18 kt or 1,000 n miles at 28 kt.

The ship will be armed with launchers for the Indo-Israeli Barak-8 or Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LR-SAM) missile system, two of which are mounted forward while another two are installed with two clusters mounted forward and two mounted abaft the funnel, and one eight-cell BrahMos missile launcher unit located forward.

Anti-submarine weapons comprise a pair of rocket launchers that are an indigenous modification of the RBU 6000, and a pair of triple-tube torpedo launchers.

Armament includes a 76 mm Oto Melara gun and a pair of AK-630M close-in weapon systems sited at aft above the hangar. The ships will be equipped with two anti-torpedo decoy systems, and what appear to be four decoy launchers.

Sensors include the Elta MF-STAR radar for the LR-SAM housed in an enclosed mast, a number of unspecified navigation radars, and a bow-mounted sonar.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests