Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3143
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 18 Mar 2017 19:40

The Navy never said NLCA Mark-1 meets requirements or expectation. I think CNS was only stating what the people on ground already knew. It attracts attention only because it came up on the chief's annual conference, which gets coverage from the whole nation. Tje navy on its part has been supporting and funding the Mark-2 from inception for this reason.

I would like to ask whoever said the part in red, whether they think that NCLA Mark-1, is as per him suitable for operationalization by Navy?

Neshant wrote:.....
Moreover CCS had sanctioned the development of TEJAS for navy in 2003 and in 2009 it gave go-ahead to the development of TEJAS Mk-2. After all these years of R&D , We have a new navy chief who, all of a sudden, feels that TEJAS is overweight and won’t meet Indian navy’s requirements even though the carrier trials of TD is yet to occur and final product is still under development. The question here is that why Navy couldn’t identify and outline its actual requirements during all these years? One can’t expect a light category fighter to carry a payload comparable to a Medium class fighter. TEJAS was always meant as a light aircraft and Tejas Mk 2 perfectly meets the payload requirement of it’s class.
[/quote]

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1360
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 18 Mar 2017 23:02

There is an opportunity to use SAGAR (used in the context of amphibious transport plane) kind of ANN based solution to the control of sail on the world circumnavigating training boats of IN

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 19 Mar 2017 17:18

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 710646.cms

Similarly, Parrikar refused to move ahead on a high-cost plan of the navy to design a next-generation aircraft carrier with a potential budget of over Rs 10,000 crore. The simple logic of the minister was that a new aircraft carrier would have limited utility for India and the same resources would be used to address more urgent needs like new frigates and submarines.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2017 18:44

MP was exceptionally wise to go slow on the IN's supercarrier dream,which in reality would turn out to be a financial and acquisition nightmare.

MDL wants to build 3 more Scorpnes. What are our alternative options? Ideally,extra subs would be rgreat of the same type,but three factors need to be v.carefully examined.Firstly,the sensational leak of the sub;'s basic design,performance,etc.This may have real disadvantages in combat with the enemy knowing the performance parameters in general,even if their are differences/variations with our subs. Secondly,the huge cost. The non-AIP Boats are about twice the cost of the latest Kilo variants ,which are also being built by Ru in half the time. Do we need more Scorpenes or a new design,say German 214/216 U-boats? lastly,the weaponry aboard. Exocet,sub-Harpoon in their current avatars,are woefully inferior to existing Klub and future BMos-M supersonic missiles.Even an ER sub-sonic Exocet has a range of upto 200km when compared with 300 for the Klub which is operational on our upgraded kilos. We need to leverage the huge advantage that these missiles have given us. Both are multi-variant,with Klub even having an anti-sub variant. In the current variant,the large BMos now has an extended range of upto 500/600km,that makes the sub that carries it even deadlier .Can the Scorpene design be modified to carry BMos? I seriously doubt it and for just 3 more subs,the effort is not worth it.

If MDL and DCNS can show how the extra 3 will be cost-effective,costing less than the first 6,and in a far shorter time,then it may be worth it. Adding AIP will only increase the costs and there are doubts about the effectiveness of MESMA which the Pakis already have on their Agostas.They are to switch to the Stirling engine AIP system for their 8 Yuan boats from China. Russia has also been developing a new AIP system as such:("The design bureau continues equipping diesel-electric submarines with air-independent propulsion units able to burn reformed diesel fuel. Air-independent propulsion units of this type also have electrochemical generators,)

For MDL it will be business as usual,more licence building,but for DCNS,a coup after winning the massive OZ contract. Now in winning that order,DCNS guaranteed OZ that they "would NOT give India equivalent sub tech".This was a key factor that won them the order against the Germans. Therefore,is it worth adding another 3 Scorpenes which will be inferior to those that Oz will be operating inthe future,or should or next western subs built be superior to the current Scorpenes?

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 591479.ece
Mazagon Docks, DCNS keen on making 3 more Scorpene-class subs
AMRITA NAIR-GHASWALLA

Approach the Navy for another order; submarines to be made in Mumbai

MUMBAI, MARCH 19:
Mazagon Docks Ltd along with French shipbuilder DCNS, its technology partner for the Scorpene submarines, has approached the Indian Navy with a repeat order for three Scorpene-class submarines, despite the data leak scandal that had threatened to derail the project last August.

Like the first six Scorpenes, the three new submarines would also be manufactured at the Mumbai site, and would be equipped with a new anaerobic propulsion system (AIP) developed by the DRDO.

Six Scorpene submarines were ordered in 2005, and are being built at the state-owned Mazagaon Docks (MDL) in Mumbai, with technical assistance and transfer of technology as well as equipment from DCNS. INS Kalvari, the first Scorpene class stealth submarine built under Project 75, is currently undergoing extensive sea trials, while INS Khanderi, the second indigenous Scorpene-class submarine was recently launched at MDL.

The Scorpene submarine is one of the newer submarines of the Indian Navy, and has the capability of launching an anti-ship missile from below the surface of water which is expected to give the Navy a boost. Sensitive data related to the Scorpene was leaked in the Australian media last year. A committee was set up to look into the matter.

In early March, the Indian Navy conducted the maiden firing of an SM39 anti-ship missile from INS Kalvari. The missile successfully hit a surface target at extended ranges during the trial firing, and was hailed as a significant milestone, not only for the Kalvari submarine, but also in enhancing the Indian Navy’s sub-surface warfare capability.

Sources in the know pointed out that all six Scorpene being built in India are to be equipped with anti-ship missiles, which can help neutralise surface threats at extended ranges.

Sources pointed out that a repeat order for three new submarines would also help the Indian shipyard maintain the know-how and skills it has acquired through the manufacture of the first two Scorpene.

“At a seminar in November 2016, former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikkar had expressed a need for 24 submarines to be built for the Navy, including the six P-75 Scorpene submarines currently on order.

“Given the extensive submarine building programme in other countries, the Minister was keen to strengthen the fleet. It makes emminent sense to continue to build on the first order,” said an official, requesting anonymity, adding that it was also an option under the P-75 programme.

Transfer of technology from DCNS also involves changing “the shells of the Scorpene by making them thicker with steel”, and the Indian counterparts have been educated on the same, as also integrating it with missiles and weapon systems.

Recently, the Indian Navy detailed a timeline for the induction of six Scorpene submarines, with the first two set to be commissioned end-2017

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2017 18:48

PS: Follow on to the above post,why the Germans lost out to Oz. The OZ boats will be based upon the Barracuda design,not the Scorpene.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 9e4f0faac2
Xcpt:
The Germans were told that the “critical issue’’ was that their submarine was too noisy.

Specific­ally they were told, with deliberate vagueness, that the boat would be too noisy at a particular frequency that was very important to the Royal Australian Navy — an ­apparent reference to the submarine’s ability to collect close-to-shore intelligence without detection.

The Germans countered by asking what the frequency was and why it was not emphasised in the bidding process.

The Australians responded that this information was classi­fied, but that they were not convinced TKMS understood the significance of this issue for ­Australia. They said the problems with stealth meant that the German proposal could never have deliv­ered a regionally superior submarine for Australia.

The Germans persisted, asking where the excess noise was coming from — internal machinery, the propellers, the hull?

Again the Australian offic­ials declined to comment.

One German observer said: “The might of Germany’s military-industrial complex could easily solve a technical issue like this if only the Australians had been more forthcoming about the issue itself before we submitted the bid.”

The successful French bidder, DCNS, worked hard ­behind the scenes last year to cast doubt in the minds of Australian officials about the noise level of the TKMS ­submarine.

DCNS modelled its estimate of the noise projection of the proposed German boat using the noise signature of its own, smaller, Scorpene-class submarine. It then compared this estimate with the noise signature for the quieter new French Barracuda submar­ines upon which the French-­Australian submarine will be substantially based.

The French also loudly touted their revolutionary pump jet propulsion system, which will replace propellers on the Australian boat, the Shortfin Barracuda.

Paris claimed this would give its submarine a higher tactical ­silent speed than the German Type 216 submarine and Japan’s evolved Soryu-class submarine, both of which would have propellers. Australian officials were said to have been highly impressed by the fact that when the Barracuda submarine accelerated, the French design was significantly quieter than either the German or the Japanese alternatives.

While the German delegation at the Kiel briefing was told that noise was the critical factor in the final decision, they were also ­informed about other perceived problems with the German bid.

The Australians told them the pre-concept design submitted to Defence at the end of November last year was “not balanced” and design optimisation “was not achieved”.

They said they had reser­vations about the safety of the proposed lithium ion batteries that were to be installed on both the German and the Japanese sub­marines. Both those nations maintain that lithium ion batteries, which are four times more efficient than trad­itional lead acid batteries, are safe, despite small fires that have occurred in those batteries in hobby equipment, cars and ­airlines.

In March, France publicly warned about the dangers lithium ion batteries might pose in a submarine. The Australian delegation made it clear in Kiel that it too had reservations.

The Australians also expressed scepticism about the ability of TKMS to upscale the size of both its Siemens motors and its ­submarine hulls to build a 4000-plus tonne submarine — almost double the size of previous sub­marines built by the company.

In addition, the Germans were told that their cost projections were overly optimistic, including their claim that there would be only a negligible premium for building all of the submarines in Australia.

Germany’s bid claimed that the price of building eight submarines (not including the combat system) would be just less than $12bn, while 12 ­submarines including the combat system would cost $20bn.

Defence sources say the Australian delegation told the Germans in the Kiel debriefing that this cost estimate did not ­reflect the technical challenges and was “well below expectations’’.

TKMS had argued that building all 12 submarines in Australia would cost no more than building them all in Germany.

This contrasted with internal government estimates of about a 15 per cent premium on costs for an Australian build.

The Australian officials debriefed the Germans that there was not enough analysis in their bid proposal to make a convincing case that the premium for an all-Australian bid would be so low.

After an awkward, sometimes tense and occasionally feisty two-hour meeting, the Australian dele­gation and the German ship­builders went to lunch.

The lunch was no less tense, ­according to those present.

The Germans who attended were far from satisfied with the ­explanations they had received.

“This has caused significant damage to the relationship,” one told The Australian.

“We don’t think the material was assessed fairly and we don’t think our bid was considered properly.

“We are very disappointed.”

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2570
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 20 Mar 2017 19:07

Philip wrote:This was a key factor that won them the order against the Germans. Therefore,is it worth adding another 3 Scorpenes which will be inferior to those that Oz will be operating inthe future,or should or next western subs built be superior to the current Scorpenes?


Do you foresee Indian scorpene (any diesel sub for that matter) going all the way till oz to fight them and Oz subs in Bay of Bengal or Arabian Sea to fight us.

Chinmay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Chinmay » 20 Mar 2017 19:30

So Philip, you are suggesting that we switch over to a new class of submarine? Have a menagerie in our sub fleet as well, with Kilos, Scorpenes, Arihant and the follow on boats as well as a new class of DE sub? Or should we stick to making more of the Scorpenes, thereby retaining the skills of the dockyard and streamlining logistics and reducing costs? I prefer the latter.

The future Oz subs are meant to patrol far out and are much larger compared to the Scorpenes and Kilos. What is the IN's doctrine for using the Scorpenes? We are not in a d*** measuring contest with the Aussies and should think about lowering costs instead of choosing a new sub class in order to satisfy our ego.
Last edited by Chinmay on 20 Mar 2017 20:51, edited 1 time in total.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2570
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 20 Mar 2017 19:57

I'd say build another 6 and close the SSKs with that for now. Really need to start building SSNs.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 603
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_P » 20 Mar 2017 20:12

by Chinmay » 20 Mar 2017 19:30
So Philip, you are suggesting that we switch over to a new class of submarine?


on the same day in the INS Vikrant thread he mentions this

by Philip » 20 Mar 2017 18:17
I echo Srai,simply because "two of the same' becomes very cost-effective,spares,support common to each,training of crew the same,weapon systems,sensors,etc.,etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15500
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby NRao » 20 Mar 2017 20:17


srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3305
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 20 Mar 2017 20:33

With P75I still years away, continuing Scorpene production makes sense. Integrate more indigenous content in the subsequent batch.

Time and again, India loses continuity between long drawn out projects. Institutional knowledge is lost.

kit
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 20 Mar 2017 20:45

What about that proposal for a conventionally powered sub based on Arihant for the P75I

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bheeshma » 20 Mar 2017 21:04

Too big for DE engines. Arihant at 110-12 m is much bigger than the Soryus at 84m. It makes sens e to go for 5 SSBN, 10 SSN and 20 SSK's with the ability to fire Nirbhays and Brahmos-M in future. For that number of SSK's its betetr to stick with Scorpene an P-75I. Of course those numbers are just a jingos wish list for now. 8)

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 20 Mar 2017 22:42

Bheeshma wrote:Too big for DE engines. Arihant at 110-12 m is much bigger than the Soryus at 84m. It makes sens e to go for 5 SSBN, 10 SSN and 20 SSK's with the ability to fire Nirbhays and Brahmos-M in future. For that number of SSK's its betetr to stick with Scorpene an P-75I. Of course those numbers are just a jingos wish list for now. 8)


Without the reactor compartment and the missile compartments, it will be much smaller.

But India wants to get latest tech - automation, etc, so this question is moot.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2017 12:07

Yes,.OZ plans to use its subs not just in the IOR but as far away as the Gulf. It has always seen India as a rival not an ally,though these days that feeling has somewhat reduced becos of our joint exercises with the US,OZ's principal military ally.OZ got from the French a guarantee that their subs would have superior tech to any subs that they sold to us.

If another western sub is reqd.,then German U-boats which we've been operating since the '80s are readily available.There have been discussions on the same,a G-to-G deal. However,here again the cost factor comes in.There was a huge escalation in the cost of the Scorpenes,and the extra 3 should not come in at enhanced prices since numbers would've been increased. They cost almost twice as much as the latest Kilos and one is sure that any Amur/Lada.Kalina whatever diesel AIP sub that Russia will offer will be significantly lower in cost. Russia is still producing Kilo subs,6 more on order for its navy. It underscores the validity of the design despite the age of the basic concept.

We are already operating 3/4 diff. sub tech/types.
China operates a few more! Therefore,there is not too much of a problem when the numbers of subs is large. The nuclear boats come as a separate type/class.One is positive that our SSNs will have much commonality with the Arihants,other than the BM missiles/silos. We have 9 Kilos,will have 6 Scorpenes and already have 4 U-209s.These could be replaced with newer U-boats.However,the key factor of advantage in these subs will be apart from the silent factor,the weaponry. BMos and the Klub series have no equal in western fleets,barring the sub-sonic Tomahawk LRCM.Kilos can simiarly fire Kalibir LRCMs,as seen in the Syrian war.Exocet and Harpoon are inferior,it has to be acknowledged.In fact we've already demonstrated a sub-launched BMos but have no platform for it! Since its range is now being further extended to around 500-600km,our future conventional subs must have this capability.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10134
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 22 Mar 2017 02:23

I feel that there will be no direct purchase of Russian subs anymore.
There may be MKI-ised purchase of russian sub tech, like in the case of the Arihant.

I think that an Indian designed sub line with a mix of Indian, western and russian equipment is very possible.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2017 12:10

We have not been able to design a suitable advanced desi sub,lack an AIP system too,which is why the 75I programme has been unduly delayed. The search is now on for another firang type.Ru help for the SSNs and SSBNs is crucial for us and one supposes that it will quietly happen without too much of fanfare.shrouded in mystery ,tagged onto the lease of a second Akula,some reports say is the Samara,a sub already in service with the RuN to undergo a refit or the unfinished Ksshalot either of which will be substantially upgraded with greater capabilities than the Chakra..

To my mind,there are 4 key requirements.First,degree of quietness expected by the IN,AIP system ,weaponry and cost. Should the main contenders meet
satisfactorily the first two items,weaponry aboard and the cost factor (crucial) will help swing the deal. Expected from all is full TOT.Western subs come with the handicap of not being able to fire Klub/Kalibir or BMos missiles,which are the real game-changers in anti-surface/land attack maritime warfare. Superspeed torpedoes like Shkval are also unavailable for western boats.This second line of conventional subs ,one supposes is meant primarily for littoral warfare,HUK subs. If ASW warfare is the key ,with surface strike.land attack secondary,then western subs have a good chance of making the grade. Nirbhay,when it is perfected could be used aboard all subs . Our existing upgraded Kilos armed with Klubs and Akulas/SSNs to come armed with BMos,Klub,etc., could take care of the blue-water,multi-ocean requirements. 6-9 Scorpenes plus another batch of U-boats for argument's sake,could make life v.difficult for the PN's subs. Remember however that the PN will possess 12 AIP subs after it receives all 8 Chinese boats. We need to have 2-1 advantage in numbers against the PN,with our N-boats looking after intruding PLAN subs which will mostly be carried out by their N attack boats.24 diesel /AIP boats,plus 12" N-boats is the bare min. that we require asap.In time to come,the Kilo class subs could be replaced by another newer type of Ru conventional subs,perhaps the Kalina class,or a desi design ,which will require collaboration with a reputed design bureau.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58093
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 12:26

Oz's barracuda french sub dreams are imo a big joke. they will come in at $2 billion each at the profit of having a local MRU capability and french will laugh and giggle all the way to bank.

collins redux.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 956
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Mar 2017 13:05

Austin wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/manohar-parrikar-ended-up-getting-tangled-up-in-all-the-defence-deals-he-tried-to-unravel/articleshow/57710646.cms

Similarly, Parrikar refused to move ahead on a high-cost plan of the navy to design a next-generation aircraft carrier with a potential budget of over Rs 10,000 crore. The simple logic of the minister was that a new aircraft carrier would have limited utility for India and the same resources would be used to address more urgent needs like new frigates and submarines.



Is this official? I thought we were in deep talks with Unkil over collaboration on Vishal.

I understand we need frigates and subs but soldiering on with two STOBARs is a dead-end for carrier aviation unless we go F-35. This is disappointing to say the least.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58093
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 14:21

we need to get into a situation of comfort on SSN , SSK front first. there is not enough money given the huge cost of sub programs

I would rather we spent on subs, MCMVs, LRMP and good balanced DDG/FFGs with Barak8+SRSAM

with Tu160mk2 production about to restart we should buy in and get ourself some 12 of these babies- even @ 300 mil each they would be a real steal and help russia attain economy of scale .... I am sure they would have no objection. we can fit our own missiles on it. with a typical 50% uptime of heavy bombers we can launch 6 of these any given day....


carriers are not necessary vs TSP and not going to help vs PLANAFs throw weight in SCS

its a trap laid by unkil to divert funding ... long term ... once u rear a white elephant calf you must feed it all through its long life....some 20kg of green grass a day :shock:

instead when the time comes we should get a couple of enlarged Izumo class LHD with JSF-B for sea control and bullying duties

we need teeth not show. the minimum needed to scare Cheen is a task force consisting of 3 CVNs backed up with land based heavy bombers. this is exactly what the USN brings to the table.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 22 Mar 2017 14:51

Nothing is a steal from Russia these days. You'll probably have only 1 or 2 available at any time after 1 year when we realise we have to even import screws with typical 3 year lead-times.

We need subs in numbers. Now. Collaborating with Russia on anything else is a waste of precious IN resources.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4812
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 22 Mar 2017 14:57

chola wrote:Is this official? I thought we were in deep talks with Unkil over collaboration on Vishal.

I understand we need frigates and subs but soldiering on with two STOBARs is a dead-end for carrier aviation unless we go F-35. This is disappointing to say the least.

Not necessarily. Order a follow-on sister ship to the Vikrant (Viraat reborn) and we should have it in the next 10 years. Given the already generated experience - there's minimal financial or technical risk involved. It'll also prevent skills at the shipyard from atrophying before they get to work on the IAC II. Order an adequate number of F-35Bs and they can operate from both ships, potentially supplemented by Tejas Mk2s. The IN gets its three carrier navy with at least two of them consisting of a reliable modern design.

The EMALS-equipped Vishal will require a far longer design process, extensive derisking efforts, consultancy and so on. Its unlikely to be delivered any earlier than 2035 (and therefore ought to planned with a sister ship).

That's also about when our steam turbine propelled Vikramaditya is scheduled to be pensioned off (estimated life was 20 years), same also being true for its MiG-29Ks. The support contract with Sevmash also lapses in 2033 and god knows where spares/components will come from after. And if the damn thing starts breaking down any earlier we'll find ourselves reduced to a single carrier fleet - which is why a sister ship to the Vikrant is a must.
Last edited by Viv S on 22 Mar 2017 15:23, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 956
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Mar 2017 15:10

Singha wrote:we need to get into a situation of comfort on SSN , SSK front first. there is not enough money given the huge cost of sub programs

I would rather we spent on subs, MCMVs, LRMP and good balanced DDG/FFGs with Barak8+SRSAM



My head agrees. My heart doesn't. I want a goddam CATOBAR dammit.


with Tu160mk2 production about to restart we should buy in and get ourself some 12 of these babies- even @ 300 mil each they would be a real steal and help russia attain economy of scale .... I am sure they would have no objection. we can fit our own missiles on it. with a typical 50% uptime of heavy bombers we can launch 6 of these any given day....



I don't agree. Not at 300 mil per. Three of those would be more than a P15B with none of the persistence. And all of the money going to another Russki welfare program.


its a trap laid by unkil to divert funding ... long term ... once u rear a white elephant calf you must feed it all through its long life....some 20kg of green grass a day :shock:


I like the analogy. lol. But can't you say that about all carrier aviation? The return on the rupee is generally low unless you count the shock and awe from power projection.

If we want to keep naval aviation, if we want to project power in keeping with our global aspirations we need to push for the pinnacle in the field and that is launching fully-loaded aircraft from a CATOBAR carrier. The LHD/F-35B combo is practical I understand. Again, it is dependent on acquiring the F-35. With the B, we would do just as well on the Vikrant and Vikramaditya (severely limited for anything but VTOL aircraft) as a new built LHD.

we need teeth not show. the minimum needed to scare Cheen is a task force consisting of 3 CVNs backed up with land based heavy bombers. this is exactly what the USN brings to the table.


Cheen really isn't even in the equation. Whether in the SCS or the IOR, the USN will be its main threat. I highly doubt we'll ever see a chini CBG in the IOR in our lifetime. At any rate, you do not need a CBG to go after their CBG in our waters.

What I worry about is our power projection capabilies as well as status against smaller opponents. Or as you say "bullying." Me think it is harder to bully with a LHD seeing that even midling powers have those.

Carrier experience, in this case -- cable assisted recovery carrier experience, is perishable. The RN lost theirs once the F-4 was retired and they went to the Harrier. I don't want the IN to go all VTOL.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 956
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 22 Mar 2017 15:20

Yes, if Vishal is truly off the boards then I want the second Vikrant.

tsarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 22 Mar 2017 16:27

Austin wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/manohar-parrikar-ended-up-getting-tangled-up-in-all-the-defence-deals-he-tried-to-unravel/articleshow/57710646.cmsSimilarly, Parrikar refused to move ahead on a high-cost plan of the navy to design a next-generation aircraft carrier with a potential budget of over Rs 10,000 crore. The simple logic of the minister was that a new aircraft carrier would have limited utility for India and the same resources would be used to address more urgent needs like new frigates and submarines.


Parrikar was right - a 100,000 tonne carrier with 60 aircraft will not be useful in shallow Arabian Sea against Pakistan - and we've bases in Bhuj, Jamnagar, etc that can cover all of Southern Pakistan.

Against China, it'll be too little. A better deterrence against China is Arsenal Ships & Submarines. We've 7 Project 15A/B with 16 BrahMos and 9 frigates with 8 Brahmos add up to 184 launchers & Missiles that can effective attack any Chinese fleet + support ships + shore based infrastructure.

We need to rapidly boost our nuclear submarine fleet against China and conventional submarine + MPA fleet against Pakistan.

Sea Control of China is meaningless since we dont plan to colonize them.

Against Pakistan, Hunters and Canberras bombed Karachi in 1971, and missile boats battered them. That along with submarines and MPA is good enough.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Pratyush » 22 Mar 2017 17:12

chola wrote:Yes, if Vishal is truly off the boards then I want the second Vikrant.



The better strategy would be to keep working on vishal. With a second vikrant class ship ordered. Keeps skills intact.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58093
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 17:33

I guess the only way to reduce the astronomical cost of long range heavy bombers (B1 was $300 mil in 1998 prices) and B21 raider is est 900 mil a pop for 100 planes - is to make them ourselves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -than-plan

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby arshyam » 22 Mar 2017 17:58

chola wrote:If we want to keep naval aviation, if we want to project power in keeping with our global aspirations we need to push for the pinnacle in the field and that is launching fully-loaded aircraft from a CATOBAR carrier.

I keep hearing this bolded phrase off and on, but never understood what it means. Could you kindly elaborate?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5209
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 22 Mar 2017 18:00

Singha wrote:I guess the only way to reduce the astronomical cost of long range heavy bombers (B1 was $300 mil in 1998 prices) and B21 raider is est 900 mil a pop for 100 planes - is to make them ourselves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -than-plan


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2132567#p2132567

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 18:39

Effect of Scorpene Leak ?

Scorpene falling out of navy favor. Ask for 14 changes. Repeat order 4 now unlikely. IN backs P75I


https://twitter.com/SandeepUnnithan/sta ... 6182530048


Scorpenes no more

The first two Scorpenes, 'Kalvari' and 'Khanderi', are to be inducted in June and December. All six will enter service by 2020.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 05375.html
Few recent defence imports have been as troubled as the six Scorpene submarines imported from France in 2005. The Rs 23,562 crore deal first ran into bribery allegations, then a five-year construction delay. And last year, a leak of classified technical details by an Australian newspaper severely embarrassed the Indian Navy.

The AgustaWestland bribery case halted procurement of weapons for the Scorpenes because the parent company, Finmeccanica (now Leonardo), makes the Blackshark torpedoes that are to equip the Scorpene.

The first two Scorpenes, 'Kalvari' and 'Khanderi', are to be inducted in June and December. All six will enter service by 2020. Instead of the Scorpene, the navy now wants a bigger conventional submarine in the light of the changed threat scenario.

The Scorpenes were locally assembled through transfer of technology but achieved barely 40 per cent indigenisation. In contrast, close to 70 per cent of the four indigenous Arihant class ballistic missile submarines were made with local equipment.

The navy has decided to back the indigenous Project 75 'India' class conventional submarines to be built in collaboration with a foreign partner. The submarines will be fitted with a DRDO-developed Air Independent Propulsion to enhance its underwater endurance and the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.

The trouble is the first P-75I submarine is at least a decade away because a key strategic partnership that will allow large Indian private companies to tie up with foreign firms is yet to be approved. It will take at least seven years to roll out the first P-75I submarine. Till then, the navy will have to make do with the six Scorpenes and life extensions to its aging fleet of 13 submarines.


Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2570
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 22 Mar 2017 19:17

We really need to enter into an agreement with say Russia (depending on which sub we buy) so that we can make all 6 in parallel. 3 in their yards and 3 in ours. If first sub is to come after 7 years, it will take another 4 5 years for all others.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ragupta » 22 Mar 2017 19:55

There must be 3 lines for sub. Scorpene expertise must not be lost. So production line should be 1. Mazagaon, 2. Visakhapatnam, 3. private mostly L&T. There is a need for 2 additional submarine repair yards, rather than sending submarine to foreign shores for repair.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58093
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 21:02

Russia has some 4 yasen boats under construction in parallel plus borei class.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:07

if IN has asked for 14 changes and planned to cap scorpene production then the leaks are quite serious to mandate the change and cap production.

DCN wont mind they won a huge australian deal , IN scorpene will be passe

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sohamn » 23 Mar 2017 00:05

Lets took at what capability India has with respect to sub construction
a) India built HDW-U-209 with ToT
b) India built scorpene with ToT
c) India can overhaul Kilos
d) India has russian scientists helping us
e) India can build SSNs and SSBNs
f) India has private companies that can build batteries
g) India can build complex weapon platforms and integrate underwater SSHMs
f) India has good overall ship building expertise
h) India is building its own mini sub

With all the above, why does India need help from a foreign partner to build a DE submarine? P-75I should be a completely indigenous effort that can source manpower and tech from the above list.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10134
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Gagan » 23 Mar 2017 00:32

^^^
GoI lacks will and the resilience to see it through...

Otherwise, India has EVERYTHING it could possibly need to put together such a sub. The engine can be imported. Like the chinese imported German engines for their kilo-copy, but shanghiied it quickly to make their own

Lets see, India has:
1. The sonar
2. The torpedos, sub launched cruise missile
3. Walchandnagar is building gearboxes for the Arihant class
4. An all camera mast along with electronic masts can be easily made within the country
5. Steel, and welding tech: Steel is possible - wonder if the Scorpene steel was sourced from within India. What about the Arihant steel?
6. Precision equipment needed to make the sub and the skills are all available.
7. Battery and even AIP is already being done. The Kilos have indian batteries, which are better than the russian ones.
8. Enough designers and maturity in the country to handle this. The Navy has a large enough simulation tank to test everything

What else do we need other than GoI and IN blessing and money to be allocated?

Now if we still sit around and allow another imported sub line, then I don't know what to say frankly.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1772
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 23 Mar 2017 11:20

I believe we need another import of the DE subs. We may have all the capabilities and the capacity to design and build our own sub but our requirement for this was as of day before yesterday and ti design test and certify our own design would be a long drawn program which would not meet our urgent requirement.
Instead we can start development of a desi SSK and iron out any issues that we face in the program while we also order a limited number of good enough subs like the upgraded Kilo's as a stop gap measure. The total SSK requirement is about, conservatively, 16-18(13 existing subs requiring replacement and 3-5 subs additional to increase force strength and capabilities). Of the above we have the Scorpene's taking up almost 1/3 of the lot. Of the remaining 9-12 we can import about 3-4 as immediate requirement, with options for 2 more with ToT if required, and the remaining can be replaced with the desi SSK we develop.

Just my 2 paise..

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16434
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2017 12:04

Though we posses large knowledge about sub warfare and have made great strides in sub-tech,etc. we do not have any design bureau comparable with those of both east and west. Our first desi design,the ATV/Arihant,was achieved with huge help from Russia.The piddly "allowance" given to the IN for decades makes it truly astounding and remarkable how far it has come to self-sufficiency,which must make the other two services ahng their heads in shame.

Sub-tech however is the holy grail of weapon systems and the most zealously guarded. Let's look at the options for the next boat. First,the AIP system,which is best? We have MESMA (FR),fuel-cell (German) and our desi AIP system is supposed to be something similar and the latest Russian diesel recovery AIP system,Sweden its Stirling engine-used by the PLAN and Pakis in the future.
From analysis of the AIP options,the IN must choose the system that suits the operational doctrine of its conventional sub fleet. If P-75I is to carry BMos,then a much greater operational multi-ocean area is required,necessitating a larger boat than the Scorpenes. The Germans have their U-216 (paper boat ) concept,while the Russians have their Lada/Amur and Kalina class expected around 2018+. The foll. article from the Rubin design bureau shows how critical is the AIP choice.

http://ckb-rubin.ru/en/press_room/execu ... h_power-1/
December 2016 Issue
More Stealth Power

Development of the perfect AIP system cannot be complete without substantial financial backing

Igor V. Vilnit, Rubin Design Bureau's Director General - General Designer
http://www.forceindia.net/MoreStealthPower.aspx

For as long ago as 15 years the scientific community and defence experts had advocated the introduction of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) for submarines. Years later, AIP systems have become a regular feature with navies across the world, and so now the first results of AIP usage can be interpreted and conclusions drawn.
The main reason behind adopting AIP systems is to increase a submarine's stealth by eliminating noisy snorkelling and remaining in contact with the atmosphere. The benefits of added stealth outweigh the increased cost of the submarine over its life cycle, stringent requirements for the infrastructure and crew training.
From both a theoretical and practical point of view, it is clear that none of today's AIP plant types are ideal in all respect; each has its merits and drawbacks. Besides, none of the navies have similar conditions. Each navy performs its tasks, operates in different geographical zones, and has varied level of crew training and conditions at naval bases. Most importantly, all navies have separate financial capacity. Hence, from a customer's point of view, availability of different AIP types is a boon as it allows him to select the most suitable solution.
Irrespective of all theoretical diversity of possible AIP types, the experience of recent years has shown that only two types of AIP systems are in demand in the market - Stirling AIP system and fuel cell AIP system. As for the closed cycle steam turbine MESMA, it has shown its practicality but has remained a niche product. Other exotic types of AIP plants have also remained on paper or in laboratories.

Stirling

The Stirling engine-based AIP system has become the first combat-ready system of new age. It is a relatively simple plant where diesel fuel (typical for the submarine) and liquid oxygen are used. Exhaust of the plant is discharged overboard rather easily at small and medium depths. Low power Stirling engines are much quieter than main diesel generators of submarine, which provides for considerable tactical gains. Accordingly, the introduction of such AIP system gave obvious advantages with acceptable investment in the engineering of the system itself, training of crews and modification of shore infrastructure. It took less than 15 years for the creation of this system from a concept to the implementation in a combat submarine.
Although this system cannot be considered ideal with respect to stealth, everything seems to suggest that the Swedish Navy is quite satisfied with its parameters. In all appearances, it is related to the features of the Baltic Sea - its small area, shallow depths, complex hydrology as well as heavy traffic obviate the reduction of submarine acoustic signature to an absolute minimum. On the other hand, the nature of the Baltic requires the development of relatively small submarines, which agrees well with compactness of Stirling engines and their low aggregate power. The financial capacity of the Swedish Navy does not allow it to seek expensive "absolute" solutions either.
This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Singapore purchased Swedish submarines with Stirling engines. Conditions in the Strait of Malacca and adjacent water areas are quite similar to the Baltic ones.
The acquisition of license for Swedish AIP by Japan stands apart in some way. While the Sea of Japan, just as the Baltic, is an enclosed sea and has a heavy traffic, it is much deeper. And the Japanese submarines are larger than the Swedish ones; they operate not only in inland seas but in the ocean as well. Low power of Stirling engines forced the Japanese designers to go the extensive way to enhance capabilities of AIP system - the Japanese submarines have the AIP system with four engines, not with two as the case with more compact Swedish submarines. As regards the level of industry development, it is difficult to suppose that Japanese companies would not cope with independent development and manufacture of a necessary AIP system and setup of a required infrastructure. The scale of combat ship/submarine construction in Japan does not allow us to consider the military budget of the country to be extremely limited. However, the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force preferred licensing the existing system, developed for noticeably different conditions instead of developing the indigenous one. This example once again shows that a choice of AIP system is due to many reasons, some of them not being seen at first glance.

Fuel Cells

The second type of AIP system - fuel cells - are firmly associated with German submarines of Class 212A and Class 214 though the works on various types of fuel cells are being conducted in other countries too, including Russia (alkaline fuel cells) and India (phosphoric-acid fuel cells).
Having passed a long way of theoretical and experimental investigations, German designers developed a submarine with a nearly "absolute" AIP system - low noise, low temperature, with ordinary water at the process output. These advantages were achieved at the expense of complexity and high cost of the system as well as considerable increase in submarine dimensions. The Class 212A submarines are three times larger than the previous submarines of the German Navy - Class 206. In addition, the fuel cell-based AIP system requires meticulous training of the crew and the setup of a dedicated infrastructure.
The implementation process of this AIP system turned out to be rather long. Twenty-five years have passed from the first activities on submarine AIP systems till the delivery of a combat submarine. Furthermore, the works of German designers were supported by the long-standing European efforts on bringing hydrogen energy into every field, most notably in automotive industry.
In addition to the development of the fuel cell as such - and complexity is inherent to this product - it was necessary to solve the problem of hydrogen storing. Hydrogen metal hydride storage used in submarines of Classes 212A and 214 makes it possible to achieve a high safety level, but requires considerable weights and volumes. By the way, the safety is confirmed by operational experience of these submarines. The efficiency-safety conflict, so common for submarine design, in this particular case is expressed in large weight of metal hydride alloy and low hydrogen content in it. The increase of hydrogen quantity leads to an unacceptable weight of storage system and accordingly to an unacceptable size of the submarine. In addition, there are doubts in the applicability of metal hydride storage system for the submarine operating in the areas with high seawater temperature. A peculiar feature of the metal hydride is to discharge hydrogen exactly when alloy temperature increases, i.e. under tropical conditions, the discharge may take place spontaneously.

The German Navy who conceived their submarines for operations in the Baltic and Northern Seas have not been considering these limitations as essential ones. Submerged endurance of Class 212А submarine is sufficient for these theatres due to their constraints. When the Italian Navy joined the 212A programme, the picture did not change much - realities of the Mediterranean Sea do not require a high submerged endurance. Besides, one should bear in mind that German and Italian submarines both in the Mediterranean Sea and near western and northern coasts of Europe operate in the areas controlled by allied surface and air forces. These submarines may be deployed to the operational areas in any mode. Accordingly, they may use diesels for battery charging the most time switching over to the fuel cell mode only in case of extreme necessity.
Development of the hydrogen infrastructure necessary for hydrogen generation, storage and transfer to the ship is an important part of AIP system engineering. This is related to both stringent requirements for hydrogen purity and its potential hazard. Since the mid-1970s, the activities in the field of hydrogen power including the works on hydrogen storage and transportation have been carried out by many European companies, first of all, by automotive ones. From the late 1990s, these works were actively supported and financed by the European Community. The joint efforts brought positive results. Relying on the achievements of commercial sector, the German industry has successfully coped with the establishment of infrastructure for the Navy.

The Class 214 submarines intended for export also have the AIP system consisting of fuel cells and metal hydride cylinders for hydrogen storage. Their submerged endurance also turned out to be sufficient for the countries that bought these submarines - Portugal, Greece and Turkey. Their navies operate in the same conditions, and purchase of submarines, made with the use of proven technologies, reduces financial and technical risks. It is interesting to note that, in a certain sense, export success of German version of AIP system "feeds itself". The European countries that buy the submarines with this AIP system rely, on the one hand, on the already engineered hydrogen infrastructure, and on the other hand, they expand it because they have joined the users of Class 214 submarine. Each next buyer see a more attractive picture.

In East Asia, the situation with the infrastructure is not so favourable for the time being. The Navy of South Korea, very likely, have selected the Class 214 submarine and a German version of AIP system due to the same peculiar features. Enclosed theatre, relatively short distances of patrol areas from own bases, availability of large own and allied forces - all that has a lot in common with the situation in the Mediterranean Sea.
Thus, the fuel cell-based AIP system and hydrogen storage in metal hydride cylinders has many advantages from the submarine point of view but does not make it possible to create a submarine with submerged endurance over two weeks and requires the availability of expensive hydrogen infrastructure. The deployment of such infrastructure should be supported by existing commercial networks and systems, otherwise it would take dozens of years for its implementation.

Types of reforming

These problems made the designers look for new solutions of hydrogen storing. One of the approaches was to store hydrogen in the form of certain chemical compounds with their further disintegration and recovery of hydrogen (reforming). Nowadays the activities are underway in several directions. The most known of them is reforming of methanol, ethanol and diesel fuel. Activities are being carried out for the reforming of other compounds too, for example, sodium borohydride that is stored as water solution. Transfer to the submarine and storage of these liquids is much easier compared to hydrogen and does not affect its safety directly. The volume of hydrogen containing liquids can be very large.
Application of each of the above-mentioned substances has its pros and cons - here again, we cannot get an absolute answer because we have to examine the influence of reforming on the submarine as a whole, not only on the AIP system. During development of submarine reformer, it is necessary to solve among others the issues related to fuel storage and compensation, cooling of the plant, exhaust, etc. All these aspects in their turn affect the submarine's all-round stealth.

Methanol is the easiest to decompose. The least amount of oxygen is required for its decomposition. The produced hydrogen has the highest purity. The decomposition process generates the least amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of carbon dioxide is essential for the submarine AIP plant because the exhaust not only requires an additional system and affect the submarine stealth but also requires the compensation for the weight of discharged carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, drawbacks of methanol are also considerable. It is extremely toxic; tanks, pipelines and fittings intended for this alcohol should be thoroughly sealed and monitored, during both operation and loading the fuel. The methyl alcohol dissolves in water, therefore it cannot be stored and compensated for in the same way as the diesel fuel by taking water in the same tank where the fuel is contained. It is evident that a relevant shore infrastructure will be required. Dedicated procedures and technical means will be necessary for purchase and storage of this toxic alcohol as well as its transfer to the submarine.

Ethanol is close to methanol by its properties, however it demands a more complicated reformer; the process takes place at higher temperatures and produces a larger amount of carbon dioxide. Formally, ethanol is not poisonous, however as one experienced German submariner noticed, "Ethanol is not of a less threat for the crew than methanol". Ethanol storage and compensation are prone to the same problems as for methanol. Its employment also requires a dedicated infrastructure. One can say that the transition from methanol reforming to that of ethanol would enhance the crew safety at the expense of certain additional complexity and a rise in price of AIP plant and the entire submarine.
The obvious advantage of sodium borohydride reforming is that the process does not require oxygen and does not produce a gaseous exhaust.
Diesel fuel reforming is attractive from operational point of view. Use and storage of diesel fuel has been mastered long ago, it is not expensive and quite safe; all naval bases of the world have an adequate infrastructure. In addition, only in case of the diesel fuel the submarine gets the possibility of storing only one type of fuel and use it for both diesel-generators, if any, and the AIP system. Hence, submarine operational cost reduces. Even for diesel submarines the fuel costs during 30-year service life amount to a very high share of operating expenditures. Of course, these advantages do not come easy. The diesel fuel reforming demands the highest consumption of oxygen, it takes place at highest temperatures, produces the largest exhaust volume and the hydrogen generated requires thorough purification. In this respect, it is similar to a nuclear reactor - the nuclear-powered plant is rather complicated too. Many problems should be solved to develop it but it is a "single engine" and provides for the greatest capabilities for the submarine.

Activities on Reforming


German designers commenced the activities on reformers as early as the 1990s and investigated different types of such plants including the building of demonstrators. Based on these results, methanol was selected as fuel in striving to get a compact and relatively cheap system that could be applicable for submarines of Class 212A (2nd batch) planned at that time for construction as well as for export submarines of Class 214. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) has developed and tested a methanol reformer demonstrator and then a prototype of methanol reformer. The activities on support systems were performed, primarily for an exhaust gas discharge system. However, the Class 212А submarines have not received the reforming system due to two circumstances: size of the system did not allow its easy integration into the existing project, and the economic crisis forced the German Navy to abandon financing these activities.
Nevertheless, HDW (now part of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) continues to work on the methanol reformer and actively offers a methanol reformer based AIP for export, first of all, within a power plant of the Class 216 submarines. It is not the first time when financial crises have a significant effect on the fate of new equipment, and implementation of advanced developments depends on the ability to find a foreign customer.
Rather interesting and ambitious submarine project S-80 (Isaac Peral) of Spain is based on fuel cells and ethanol reformer. Spanish designers successfully created a worldwide cooperation and obtained quite encouraging first results including a low power demonstrator. The transition to a plant of rated power turned out to be more difficult. A number of problems in the submarine design itself and unavoidable difficulties faced during the transition from the demonstrators to actual equipment led to a failure to fulfil the schedule of project, which in its turn, created a problem with project financing. Whether this project will be fruitful, is yet to be seen.

Anyway, one interesting aspect can be mentioned right now. It seems that Spanish and Portuguese navies operate under rather similar conditions and have similar missions. However, the Portuguese Navy has preferred to buy the Class 214 submarines with fuel cell AIP technology and hydrogen storage in metal hydride cylinders, and the Spanish Navy went the way of developing the original submarine project including creation of ethanol reformer from scratch with all subsequent difficulties. This fact once again demonstrates what role in the AIP system choice play the factors, which are not seen to a casual observer but are obvious to a customer.
In 2014, it became known about the works of French companies on the second-generation fuel cell system with a diesel fuel reformer. DCNS has developed and now is testing a demonstrator and to all appearances is obtaining positive results. The AIP system with the diesel fuel reformer is offered for the Scorpene submarines. It is believed that these submarines would achieve the submerged endurance of three weeks and more with such a system. A large submarine developed by DCNS, first known under the name of SMX Ocean and then as Shortfin Barracuda, deserves a separate mention. This project was selected by the Australian Navy as the basis for their SEA-1000 Programme. Very likely, the availability of export order will help DCNS to bring their AIP system to an operable condition.

India develops an indigenous AIP system for the Kalvari-class submarines.


The activities on the AIP systems based on fuel cells and diesel fuel reforming are also underway in Russia. As early as the 1990s, the Rubin Design Bureau and the Russian Navy opted for fuel cells as the most suitable AIP technology. However, the development of the AIP system was slowed by both country's economic problems and lack of pressing need to have an AIP based submarine as the Russian Navy could take advantage of nuclear-powered submarines whose nuclear reactor can be considered an ideal AIP system. :mrgreen: Although, by the early 2000s the necessity of AIP system, including for the export, was recognised and funds were raised for its development.
All that time the issue of hydrogen storage did not have a clear answer. After long-term analysis and selection of hydrogen storage method, the Rubin Design Bureau and the Navy came to the conclusion that namely the diesel fuel reforming is an optimal way. That choice takes into account the political and geographical realities under which the Russian Navy operates since they differ considerably from the European ones. The Russian boats sail in open theatres at long distances from bases with most of the time being under threat of powerful and skilled adversaries and therefore are not able to use unstealthy modes, including during the deployment to operational areas. Accordingly, they require longer submerged endurance that can be provided only if the reforming system is available. Disconnection of theatres (Northern and Pacific), necessity to rebuild not only one naval base, but a dozen of bases located at long distances from each other and many of them being in little-inhabited areas with severe climate - all that puts the cost reduction for construction and maintenance of the infrastructure as the first priority.
All these considerations resulted in the commencement of activities on the demonstrator of low power diesel reformer in 2008. This unit was successfully tested; in 2010, it was additionally developed by adding a hydrogen purification system. In 2013, the trials were completed. In 2012, the activities began on the demonstrator with a carbon dioxide treatment system. Its trials were successfully completed in 2015. Concurrently from 2012 to 2014, a high power prototype implemented in the size of a submarine compartment was developed and tested. Its trials were also completed successfully. Operation of these plants was demonstrated to high-ranking representatives of the Russian and other navies many times. Results of these efforts allow us to progress in the engineering of AIP systems based on fuel cells and diesel fuel reforming for Russian non-nuclear submarine of Lada type and a number of export submarines.
Conclusions

What conclusions can be drawn from the observations described above?

Firstly, the development of AIP system is a long and expensive process demanding a large scope of scientific and design work, engineering and testing a number of demonstrators. Success of the work is ensured not only by a high level of the science and industry but also availability of financing during the entire period of activities. Cooperation of efforts by several countries in the process of such work makes it much easier to get financing in time, and, hence, increases chances for a successful creation of AIP system itself and AIP-based submarine.
Secondly, choice of AIP type depends largely on Customer's requirements. Different requirements and different abilities of a navy lead to different design solutions at different costs. The decisive factors for AIP type selection will be the submarine submerged endurance and noise level as well as the possibility for the development of necessary infrastructure and payment of expenses for submarine operation during its entire life cycle. Difference in these requirements and abilities complicate the cooperative work of navies of various countries.
The Rubin Design Bureau continues the activities on the development of AIP system based on fuel cells and diesel fuel reforming and believes that this work would be interesting for the navies that have similar requirements for the submarine - long submerged endurance, necessity to operate independently from naval bases for a long time, low noise, easy and safe operation, low requirements for basing system.
Rubin piece on the options.

PS:In conversation some time ago with a former V.admiral-subs on the sub-ject .pardon the pun!,we came to the same conclusion that the best AIP system is an N-plant.Nevertheless,becos of the high cost of an N-sub,complexities of design and operations,non-nuclear AIP systems for smaller boats will continue to be the referred subs of choice for medium powers and complementary to the sub fleets of major navies like India,which also operate N-boats.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2859
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2017 22:01

Philip: If you are reading this...I am please reminding you again. DO NOT post entire articles in BRF. You could be infringing on copyrights. Please DO NOT cut and paste. At the most, just post a small blurb.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20058
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prem » 24 Mar 2017 00:18

https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/8 ... 7850763264

Workhorse of IN, mainstay of maritime recce & Anti submarine warfare 4 almost 30 yrs #TU142M ac to retire in a week 29Mar


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ajacob, ashishvikas, chiru, deejay, madhu and 31 guests