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.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Neshant » 22 May 2017 15:17

India sends message to China by conducting Anti Submarine Drills in the South China Sea


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 22 May 2017 18:43

India Approves $3 Billion Tender For Its Private Sector To Build 4 Landing Platform Docks For The Indian Navy

The Indian Navy’s (IN) role in relief and rescue operations during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami won it plaudits from the international community while underlining its strategic potency to Indian policy planners. For the IN however, that event brought to the fore the crucial need to augment amphibious capabilities above and beyond what is provided by its existing fleet of medium sized landing ship tanks (LSTs). The first step was of course to induct the former USS Trenton, an Austin-Class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) as the INS Jalashwa. This ship has not only given the IN exposure to operating a vessel of this size and capability but has also helped it get a fair idea of what it wants for the future. And now the IN has been given ‘in-principle’ approval by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) headed by the Indian Defence Minister for bringing in four new large amphibious warfare ships which will be built in India under international collaboration.

Interestingly, this project is now wholly reserved for execution by the private sector. Earlier thinking that two of the four LPDs should be built by the public-sector Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL), Vishakapatnam has been shot down. It should be noted that Cochin Shipyard Limited’s bid to participate in this tender for two of the four LPD’s in competition with private players had been rejected by the government in 2014 itself and request for proposals (RFP) at the time had been sent only to three domestic private shipyards run by Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering (now Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd or RDEL) , L&T and ABG Shipyard respectively.

As such, with the decision to have all four LPDs built by the private sector, RDEL and L&T have been asked to submit fresh commercial proposals within two weeks from May 21. ABG has been dropped from the tender because of poor financial health. RDEL & L&T have secured technical and financial clearances from the IN last year. Both of these yards have respective tie-ups with a foreign partner and it would therefore be worthwhile to take a closer look at the contending designs given the features specified in the request for information (RFI) for procuring four new LPDs issued by the IN way back in February 2011.



Why does the IN want LPDs?

The first edition of the Indian Maritime Military Strategy (IMMS) released in 2007 clearly recognizes: “that the use of maritime power to influence operations ashore is a primary, and not a subsidiary, role of maritime force employment”. It further outlines that “this could be undertaken through commodity denial or by directly supporting the land campaign through the delivery of ordnance by naval platforms or amphibious and/or expeditionary capabilities.”

Indeed it is precisely to augment ‘out-of-area’ or expeditionary capabilities that these LPDs are being sought by the IN.

In fact the ability to affect the course of the land battle has always been something of a “must have” for the IN. While the capability to strike shore targets using ship-launched missiles was demonstrated four decades ago with the famous raid on Karachi harbour during the 1971 war, effective ‘Maritime Manoeuvre from the Sea’, involving joint sea-land-air operations which allow forced/benign entry using sea-based forces in the Indian Ocean littoral(IOR) is something of a holy grail for the IN.

The service still rues the missed opportunity “for conduct of an outflanking amphibious assault” on Pakistan’s coastline during 1971. Whatever little was done by way of amphibious operations during that conflict was executed without adequate preparation and assets, thus limiting the overall effect in the outcome of the war. The IN feels that platforms such as LPDs enhance options and opportunities that exist in the many IOR scenarios of interest to India.

The LPD as such seems set to become the IN’s centerpiece contribution to “jointness”, a key mantra if India has to exert decisive influence in the IOR. In a show of somewhat novel inter-service concern the IMMS notes that “even if the IN solved the Army’s transportation problem, it often deposited the troops ashore in an unfit condition to fight.” Indeed modern LPD designs set great store on the comfort of troops they transport. As the IMMS further notes, “The Army’s task begins at the ‘end’ of the voyage and troops must in future be provided enough rest and other facilities during the sea transit. Staff requirements for amphibious assets, sealift and airlift must be alive to these requirements.”



What the IN wants

In the above context, the INS Jalashwa introduced to the IN the kind of advantages that having a ship capable of hosting both a substantial helicopter wing as well as smaller landing craft brings to the table in the power projection role. It is obviously clear that simply having a beach landing capability does not make one a true amphibious power. True amphibious potency instead arises from stand-off beaching and vertical envelopment capabilities, which deliver troops on target much fresher and with an arguably higher survivability rate. Over-the- horizon assault executed via a mix of heli-borne and seaborne operations, is exactly what ships such as the Jalashwa are designed to do. No doubt influenced by the Jalashwa, the broad specifications of the ship outlined in the RFI are as follows:

(a) The length of the ship would be approx 200 m. Breadth is to be commensurate with the length and tonnage of the ship.

(b) The draught of the ship is not to exceed 08 m.

(c) The ship is expected to have an endurance of 45 days.

(d) The ship is to have Diesel-Electric propulsion in either of the following configurations:-

(i) Twin shaft configuration, with twin rudders and Fixed Pitch Propellers or,

(ii) Shock graded podded propulsion.

(e) The ship is to have a suitable well deck for amphibious operations. The ship would carry amphibious crafts like LCMs or LCACs and LCVPs on davits and should have capability to launch these crafts when underway.

(f) The ship is expected to have a carriage of combat vehicles on one or more vehicle deck. This area should be adequate to embark Main Battle Tank (MBT), AAVs/BMP Class armoured vehicles and heavy trucks.

(g) The ship would be equipped with a Point Defence Missile System, Close In Weapon System, Anti Torpedo Decoy system, Chaff System and HMGs/ LMGs. In addition, ship would have one E/ F band combined air and surface surveillance radar and one C/D band air surveillance radar. All of these would be buyer nominated equipment.

(h) The ship is expected to carry army troops in addition to ship crew.

(j) The ship should have capability of simultaneous operation by day/ night of Special Operation Helicopters and Large Helicopters (up to 35 tons).

Now from the RFI, it is clear that the IN wants a ship that has a well deck, a vehicle deck as well as substantial helicopter hosting capability. None of it is surprising and conforms broadly with the features of an LPD. However the requirement that the ship “should have capability of simultaneous operation by day/ night of Special Operation Helicopters and Large Helicopters (up to 35 tons)” raises an important point. The ability to host rather big helicopters and conduct high tempo operations with them is something that can really be managed better by a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) than an LPD, since LHDs have much larger flight decks. Readers would note that LPD and LHD are actually U.S Navy hull classifications which over the years have become standard industry usage for similar ships irrespective of origin.



Nature of the build plan

Nevertheless, it seems that the IN is effectively using the terms LPD and LHD somewhat interchangeably in this tender given the total set of requirements. In any case, the IN will procure these ships under the “buy and make Indian” category outlined in the Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2011. So it will purchase these from an Indian shipyard and the RFI had accordingly been issued only for the benefit of domestic ship-builders. The International collaboration has been put in place by the Indian entity itself, without any direct involvement from the IN.

The 2011 RFI clearly states:

“In accordance with the provisions of ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ procedure, a Capability Definition Document (CDD) would be forwarded to Indian Shipyards, short listed based on RFI responses. The Indian Shipyards, in turn would forward a Detailed Project Proposal outlining the road map for development of design and construction of the ships. The Detailed Project Proposal, thereafter, would be examined by a Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) constituted by the Acquisition Wing of MoD to verify credentials of foreign partner together with confirming acceptability of joint venture of the shipyard with the foreign collaborator.” So, one can assume that rather than the exact labelling of the ship type, it is conformity to defined capabilities that will decide the matter.

With the December 2013 RFPs being no longer valid, fresh bids for this Rs 20,000 crore project to build four LPDs have been sought from RDEL & L&T, as we have noted earlier. For their bids to build the ships in India, L&T has tied up with Spain’s Navantia, while RDEL has teamed with France’s DCNS. Understandably a number of international players were interested in collaborating with Indian shipyards for this tender but it seems now that Indian private shipyards have settled for collaborative ventures with Western players only for this tender.

The French and the Spanish offerings likely to compete for this tender have been around for a while. The French entry via RDEL would of course be DCNS’s Mistral Class Amphibious Assault Ship. The Mistral measures just a shade under 200 metres and has a draught of 6.3 metres. Displacing 21,300 tonnes at full load, the Mistral is essentially a LHD and has a total of six helicopter landing spots and can carry up to 16 heavy or 35 light helicopters. It can embark 900 troops for a short duration and 450 for extended operations besides being able to host 59 troop vehicles or 40 heavy main battle tanks (MBTs). Armed with a modern CIWS the Mistral’s well deck can also host two LCACs. Three Mistrals are already in service with the French Navy and before the Ukraine imbroglio happened the Russians were getting ready to induct the first of their four such vessels on contract with two manufactured domestically. The ship will be considered closely for this tender, but price and transfer of technology arrangements will have to be sorted out.

L&T is likely to offer Navantia’s Juan Carlos Class Strategic Projection Vessel. As the name would suggest, this ship was designed to be more than a mere amphibious support vessel and accordingly the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos has a ski jump at the end of its 202 metre flight deck. It was built to enable V/STOL fighter operations from this ship. Nevertheless, the ship can be built without the flight desk as is the case with the two Canberra class ships, a derivative of the Juan Carlos Design, ordered by Australia. The ship’s substantial flight deck has eight landing spots for helicopters and its air wing can consist of up to 30 aircraft. The Juan Carlos displaces just over 27,000 tonnes and can carry 1200 troops and almost 50 MBTs. It’s draught of 6.9 metres meets Indian specifications but its overall length of 230 metres would make it the longest entrant, if at all. Indeed, the Juan Carlos has some additional capabilities which make it a pseudo-carrier. But it remains to be seen if that is what the IN is looking for.

As mentioned earlier, the tender is about specific capabilities and not terms. The IN is hopeful that this tender will be fast-tracked with a tender decision before the end of 2017. In any case it is in the nation’s interest that this tender be expedited so that India can fulfill its manifest destiny in the Ocean that bears its name.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby yensoy » 22 May 2017 21:35

^^^^^^ 35t heavy "helicopter" requirement is probably paving the way for tilt-rotor aircraft of the future

I personally like the destroyer-on-steroids look of the San Antonio class than the floating-breadbox looks of the European LHDs.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prasad » 22 May 2017 21:41

JTull saar,
pliss to not post entire article :)

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

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bheeshma » 22 May 2017 22:35

San Antonio is LPD. Not LHD like Mistral or San Juan. I hope IN goes for both.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3274
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya G » 23 May 2017 02:37

JTull wrote:....
(ii) Shock graded podded propulsion.
....


Podded propulsion was the reason IN did not go for RuN Mistrals.

We could have purchased those 2 ships and settled this acquisition program years ago. :((

maz
Webmaster BR
Posts: 292
Joined: 03 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby maz » 23 May 2017 05:44

Do not hold your breath for the LPD deal to be signed soon. Let us celebrate when the deal is actually signed - whenever that may be. Nothing moves according to conventional wisdom in the Indian MoD. The IN keeps slipping behind other significant players with each passing day.... it is sad but true. Maybe there will be a miracle, and somehow the deal gets signed by end 2017.

On a more serious note, too many critical programs like submarines and MCMVs continue to get delayed when the options for going forward are right here. For example, the Scorpene line should be going full steam - pumping out incrementally modernized variants with new kit inside of the proven hull. Having significant numbers of operational hulls - regardless of whether they are the 'latest' or not - is a major deterrence.


The one good thing may be the new SSN program - but things are kept very quiet on this front. That could be a good thing - meaning there's substantial progress - or a bad thing - meaning there's not much progress. Hopefully, it is the former and one day we will all be surprised by a new SSN...

The state of affairs with the MCM fleet is dismal to put it mildly. It is borderline criminal neglect - through indecision - if one thinks about it.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby yensoy » 23 May 2017 06:50

Bheeshma wrote:San Antonio is LPD. Not LHD like Mistral or San Juan. I hope IN goes for both.


Sir, who will pay for this?

LHD could be a good substitute for aircraft carriers which are basically sitting ducks and suck away another 8 support ships. Yes I know this has been debated a lot and there are strong opinions both ways but we need to clarify our threat perception, our defence/offence strategy, and our force projection goals in order to drive these decisions. As of now I don't think we are clear so we end up ordering a little of everything, what our budget, forex budget, and supplier delivery schedules will allow. Instead we should be doubling down on certain platform types (thereby having the ability to put some indigenous R&D into it) and stop worrying about the rest. In this light, we should be moving to small(er) and lethal 3000-5000t corvettes/frigates (we already have the larger platforms), ASW equipment, and D/E (subsequently AIP) submarines - and stay focussed on producing these in India at a rapid clip, instead of getting drawn into huge projects with limited payoffs. The only exception to the above is SSN because of the nature of the beast - it is a long term program.

Oh and we should learn from iron brother. Half the surface ships should be painted white in coast guard colours, for "anti-piracy" use :D

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 23 May 2017 10:32

Vina,the Gorky acquisition has been debated threadbare.Everyone knows the F.up poor estimating the scope of work required for conversion of the cruiser-carrier into a reg. flat top. No drgs. from the UKR shipyard,etc.,etc.Both sides are to blame,poor contract negotiations (tx to our MOD,seen in the Scorpene and other deals too) and at that time remember,there were no other carrier options available to India/IN.Ultimately,it cost us $2.5B.When you compare the cost of modern carriers and warships today,you will find that it will be impossible to get a 45,000Kt carrier for just $2.5B. Our P-15B DDGs themselves are costing us around $1B each.Look at the cost of the planned acquisition of 4 more Talwars/Adm.GHrigorivitch FFGs.

Anyway,the proof of the pudding is when the fighting starts and the carrier and aircraft asked to perform their allotted tasks.

The LPD report indicates some confusion.IT says "20K t" LPDs then talks about the "R" group aligned with DCNS (Mistral class) and L&T with Navantia (Juan Carlos class).The Juan Carlos class are larger amphibs,OZ is acquiring similar vessels,possess aski-jump and are far more capable. Even if we get just 3 JUan Carlos amphibs,they will be much better than the smaller Mistrals,as they also give the option of the amphib carrying an air component of multi-role fighters like the F-35B or even our NLCA/Sea Gripen,too.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 23 May 2017 15:28

Yes, ski-jump with ability to embark even half a dozen of F-35B will make this a scary multi-role platform.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 23 May 2017 15:29

Prasad wrote:JTull saar,
pliss to not post entire article :)


Why not?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prasad » 23 May 2017 15:31

JTull wrote:
Prasad wrote:JTull saar,
pliss to not post entire article :)


Why not?


© Delhi Defence Review. Reproducing this content in full without permission is prohibited
takes away hits to the site.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 24 May 2017 05:47

brar_w wrote:Below is a Video of a C-2 being launched by EMALS (first launched in 2011). Any non US EMALS video launching similar weight class crafts from a "rapidly" developed prototype or test system?



In the above scenario, the C-2 still had to rev to max. throttle? as with a steam catapult

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 24 May 2017 19:21

brarji, was sleepy when I posted the above question, let me rephrase it, if underpowered aircraft can be launched with EMALS, underpowered in the sense they need a takeoff distance of say two times of that is available on the carrier at full throttle

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 25 May 2017 18:18

Singapore conducts anti-submarine warfare exercise with India angering China
May 24, 2017

Last Thu (18 May), the Indian media reported that the navies of India and Singapore held a mega maritime exercise in the South China Sea. Warships and planes from both navies participated in the Singapore-India Maritime Bilateral Exercise.

“The thrust of the exercise, with the harbor phase scheduled from May 18 to 20 and the sea phase from May 21 to 24, will be on anti-submarine warfare, integrated operations with surface, air and sub-surface forces, air defence and surface encounter operations,” Indian Navy Spokesperson Capt D K Sharma said.

Another Indian media said that the exercise is “seen as a manifestation of both the countries’ convergent interest in keeping China’s expansionist tendencies in check.”

China’s state-owned newspaper Global Times responded 2 days ago to the joint-exercise and quoting an analyst, Song Zhongping, said: “India’s recent joint naval military drills with Singapore in the South China Sea…could be New Delhi’s response to China’s military streamlining and its burgeoning Belt and Road initiative.”

http://www.theindependent.sg/singapore-conducts-anti-submarine-warfare-exercise-with-india-angering-china/

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-4672629/
India-Singapore joint naval exercise concludes
Over the years, SIMBEX has grown in scope and complexity, expanding beyond its traditional emphasis on anti-submarine warfare to incorporate elements of maritime security,anti-air and anti-surface warfare.
By: PTI | Singapore | Published:May 25, 2017

The week-long mega maritime exercise between the Indian Navy and the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) has come to a close. The Singapore India Maritime Bilateral Exercise 2017 (SIMBEX-17) that concluded yesterday also displayed the maiden participation of Singapore’s F-15SG fighter jets, Singapore’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement.
Hosted by Singapore, the exercise was held on land at the now renamed “RSS Singapura – Changi Naval Base” and at a sea phase in the South China Sea. This year’s exercise was the 24th iteration of the annual bilateral exercise held since 1994. The RSN deployed two frigates (RSS Formidable, equipped with an S-70B naval helicopter, and RSS Supreme) and a missile corvette (RSS Victory), while the Indian Navy participated with two frigates (INS Sahyadri and INS Shivalik), a corvette (INS Kamorta), an oiler (INS Jyoti), and a P8-I maritime patrol aircraft.

The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) also deployed two F-16D+ fighter aircrafts and a Fokker-50 maritime patrol aircraft for the exercise. During the exercise, the two navies conducted a series of advanced naval warfare serials, including air defence exercises and gunnery live-firings, the defence ministry statement said. The sea phase culminated in a mission-oriented surface action group exercise wherein assets and personnel from the two navies worked together to plan and execute a series of warfare missions, it said.
Over the years, SIMBEX has grown in scope and complexity, expanding beyond its traditional emphasis on anti-submarine warfare to incorporate elements of maritime security,anti-air and anti-surface warfare.


“SIMBEX has progressed both in scale and complexity over the years — from a serial-based exercise to today’s mission-based exercise — incorporating scenarios with threats from surface, underwater and air,” the commanding officer of RSS Formidable, Lieutenant-Colonel (LTC) Albert Khoo said. Apart from SIMBEX, the two navies also interact regularly through professional exchange programmes, staff talks and training courses.
INS Sahyadri and INS Kamorta joined in the RSN’s Golden Jubilee celebrations, participating in both the inaugural Singapore International Maritime Review at RSS Singapura – Changi Naval Base on May 15 and the International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference (IMDEX) Asia from May 16 to 18. Both navies are also exploring new and enhanced areas of cooperation in the maritime domain, the statement said.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 25 May 2017 22:46

if India has to be bet on a platform that is outside the NATO interference*, relatively speaking, its the subs, they can start off with conventional hulls however have its design allow for retrofit of a nuclear power plant at a later time

An innovation being talked about was a battery driven nuke sub generating lesser noise, the nuke plant is used for charging the battery

and maybe the indigenous AIP on the Scorpene hulls mitigates the signature leaks that happened in factory condition

thanks for bearing with the mango opinion

*Incidents like asking IN ships to return to base from Karachi blockade around parliament attack time
*French boasting that they have conducted sorties on the Paki coast to dissuade contact between PAF and IAF around the same time

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12503
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Lalmohan » 26 May 2017 13:36

don't understand... a nuke plant generates heat. what are the ways heat can be turned into electricity? steam turbines i understand

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 26 May 2017 14:59

vasu raya wrote:brarji, was sleepy when I posted the above question, let me rephrase it, if underpowered aircraft can be launched with EMALS, underpowered in the sense they need a takeoff distance of say two times of that is available on the carrier at full throttle


I think they rev to maximum power setting in order to maintain flight after cat release, and in order to make sure they are at max power in case cat fails. I could be wrong though.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 26 May 2017 15:08

Lalmohan wrote:don't understand... a nuke plant generates heat. what are the ways heat can be turned into electricity? steam turbines i understand


He's talking about electric drive versus mechanical/direct propulsion.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3347
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 26 May 2017 16:08

Bheeshma wrote:
ramana wrote:Their PM Olafe Palme was of Indian origin.
.


Where did you hear that??? Just for reference Preet bharara, Bobby Jindal is of Indian origin but no Indian would touch these slime balls with a 10 ft pole.


Where do you find ten foot Poles? :)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 26 May 2017 17:15

Philip wrote:Vina,the Gorky acquisition has been debated threadbare.Everyone knows the F.up poor estimating the scope of work required for conversion of the cruiser-carrier into a reg. flat top. No drgs. from the UKR shipyard,etc.,etc.Both sides are to blame,poor contract negotiations (tx to our MOD,seen in the Scorpene and other deals too) and at that time remember,there were no other carrier options available to India/IN.Ultimately,it cost us $2.5B.When you compare the cost of modern carriers and warships today,you will find that it will be impossible to get a 45,000Kt carrier for just $2.5B. Our P-15B DDGs themselves are costing us around $1B each.Look at the cost of the planned acquisition of 4 more Talwars/Adm.GHrigorivitch FFGs.

Nonsense. There was nothing wrong with the contract negotiations on the Indian side. The responsible for cost assessment lay with the vendor which in this case unilaterally abrogated a legally binding contract.

The blame is 'shared' only insofar as the IN & MoD were suckers for a 'free' ship.

And the 'impossible to get it cheaper' is also flat-out false. Fincantieri designed and built the 30,000 ton Cavour carrier for €1.4 bn. It was perfectly feasible to contract DCNS or Fincantieri to design & build a vessel to the IN's specifications (as opposed to modifying a laid up "heavy aviation cruiser") for under $3 bn and delivered within the same time-frame. Followed by a sister ship built at an Indian dockyard. The cost of the P-15B is irrelevant. One might as well quote the cost of the 27,500 ton Deepak class tanker ($150 mil) for all the good it'll do.

The LPD report indicates some confusion.IT says "20K t" LPDs then talks about the "R" group aligned with DCNS (Mistral class) and L&T with Navantia (Juan Carlos class).The Juan Carlos class are larger amphibs,OZ is acquiring similar vessels,possess aski-jump and are far more capable. Even if we get just 3 JUan Carlos amphibs,they will be much better than the smaller Mistrals,as they also give the option of the amphib carrying an air component of multi-role fighters like the F-35B or even our NLCA/Sea Gripen,too.

No it cannot. Just being a smaller ship doesn't mean it can accommodate smaller fighters. Stall speeds and sink rates have little to do with the absolute size of the aircraft.

The Juan Carlos doesn't have provisions for arresting gear and even if it did it would still lack an angled deck with clearance for 'bolters'. It can accommodate STOVL ops and maybe also SRVL ops but it is not and can not function as a STOBAR carrier.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 27 May 2017 02:03

JTull wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:don't understand... a nuke plant generates heat. what are the ways heat can be turned into electricity? steam turbines i understand


He's talking about electric drive versus mechanical/direct propulsion.


yes, yes hybrid propulsion with battery only mode for cruising; other than that hints have come out of some revolutionary development in undersea warfare by USN
Last edited by vasu raya on 27 May 2017 02:43, edited 1 time in total.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vasu raya » 27 May 2017 02:10

brar_w wrote:I think they rev to maximum power setting in order to maintain flight after cat release, and in order to make sure they are at max power in case cat fails. I could be wrong though.


Thanks brarji, so for example the naval LCA with the 404 can take off with the same payload as the one equipped with a 414 because EMALS gives additional thrust to the underpowered plane giving the correct ramp exit velocity that can be sustained by the flight engine on its own, ofcourse at full throttle. no backup here if cat fails.

I guess the Naval LCA, HTT-40 and Mig-29 all are short on engine power required for AC takeoff in their operational roles, and EMALS can address that shortcoming?

Its a different matter that the aircraft will be going through design iterations improving their engine power for Carrier takeoff which is again could be as prolonged as the adoption of first EMALS cat itself either as a retrofit or on a new AC

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby yensoy » 27 May 2017 09:44

Viv S wrote:...Fincantieri designed and built the 30,000 ton Cavour carrier for €1.4 bn...


Just curious - above, and in other similar references - Fincantieri is a shipyard which builds ships. Now did the €1.4 bn pay for the ship alone (hull, decks, armour, engine & controls, furnishings) or did it include armaments and electronics?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 27 May 2017 13:09

yensoy wrote:Just curious - above, and in other similar references - Fincantieri is a shipyard which builds ships. Now did the €1.4 bn pay for the ship alone (hull, decks, armour, engine & controls, furnishings) or did it include armaments and electronics?

Fincantieri was the lead contractor - most other equipment would have come from (user-approved) subcontractors. So yes, €1.4 bn includes all ship systems but probably not the munitions.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 27 May 2017 14:03

Congratulations to our scientists, engineers on successfully test firing torpedo from the first indigenously :P built Scorpene Class Submarine

https://twitter.com/arunjaitley/status/ ... 2413247488

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 27 May 2017 14:42

True,JC has a ski-jump able to operate F-35B STOVL fighters,but such a large ship can have its flight deck modified to include cats if need be.That has been my point all along.Leveraging as much as we can get out of every flat top making them multi-role,not just narrow specialist vessels. The JC class remember is larger than even the Viraat.

Was the test with one of our torpedoes,indigenously developed or one of foreign origin? In any case it really does not matter as much as origin of the torpedo but the fact that the Scorpenes at ;last have their torpedoes. This is a major positive dev. as the AW ban affected the torpedo acquisition from another group co.
Last edited by Philip on 27 May 2017 15:01, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60490
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 27 May 2017 14:43

Which torpedo? The selected vendor alenia whitehead is blacklisted

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby tsarkar » 27 May 2017 15:49

^^ most likely upgraded AEG SUT from Type 209/1500 stock but if "scientists" are involved, could be a shortened Varunastra though in that case there would've been a DRDO press release as well.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3347
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 27 May 2017 19:43

yensoy wrote:....

From a better written article http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/centre-clears-the-decks-for-20000cr-warship-project/article9709258.ece?homepage=true, it looks like they will be more reasonable 20000t ships.


^^^"The company that will finally bag the order will build two LPDs and will assist HSL in constructing the remaining two."

Typical order split that will drive up costs. Better for the winner just to build all four and pay HSL jizya on two to stay out of the way.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3347
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 27 May 2017 19:53

Karan M wrote:MKU makes vests in India. it may import the aramid or kevlar.


What else is involved in making a bullet proof vest besides aramid/kevlar? From the link below, I think just the tailoring

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Bulletproof-Vest.html

Aramid IIRC is a 1960s tech used on tires (Michelin?)

Here's a list of aramid makers:

http://www.compositesworld.com/suppliers/product/51

Some company in Gujarat makes it.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JTull » 27 May 2017 20:40

Cosmo_R wrote:
yensoy wrote:....

From a better written article http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/centre-clears-the-decks-for-20000cr-warship-project/article9709258.ece?homepage=true, it looks like they will be more reasonable 20000t ships.


^^^"The company that will finally bag the order will build two LPDs and will assist HSL in constructing the remaining two."

Typical order split that will drive up costs. Better for the winner just to build all four and pay HSL jizya on two to stay out of the way.


That last line seems to be remnant of old article. It has been very clear for few months now that all four will be built by the same 'private' shipyard.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2017 08:05

Philip wrote:True,JC has a ski-jump able to operate F-35B STOVL fighters,but such a large ship can have its flight deck modified to include cats if need be.

No Philip, you cannot "modify" an LHD with catapults. Its an asinine idea.

The entire ship would need to be redesigned at every level. Then you'd need to run a boiler off that to generate the steam to run the catapults - the ship uses diesel-electric propulsion. That's a massive amount of space consumed on a ship who's innards are expected to accommodate a marine taskforce. (Unless you're proposing, in a new ironic twist, that we get the EMALS integrated on the MRSV ships.) A modification with arresting gear might be possible but since the design lacks an angled deck most of deck space will be rendered unusable to provide clearance for bolters (fighter that fail to trap). Morever, given the size of the island the safety margin on recovery for a jet will be extremely acute. And this is assuming that the ski-jump is removed (and replaced with catapults). Leave it on and any aircraft missing the arresting wires is likely to ram into the ski-jump two seconds later at 120 knots and tip over into the soup.

That has been my point all along.Leveraging as much as we can get out of every flat top making them multi-role,not just narrow specialist vessels. The JC class remember is larger than even the Viraat.

What does being larger have to do with it? Without an angled deck a ski-jump equipped carrier (like the Viraat) can NOT carry out arrested recovery. A flat-top with an axial flight deck is only compatible with a STOVL fighter. Period.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby NRao » 28 May 2017 08:43

"modified" AKA the Vicky syndrome. Not worth it. No need to stoop so low.

India decided, some 10-15 years ago, that she needs a 65,000 ton ship. It is a done deal. So, why all this JC and another Vikrant talk? *At most* modify the Vishal deck. And, my suspicion is that such mods will come with the EMALS - let us see.



IMVVHO, the next step for India should be the design and build of a naval AMCA prototype, along with the one for the IAF.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2017 12:51

del
Last edited by Viv S on 28 May 2017 17:48, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2017 17:46

NRao wrote:India decided, some 10-15 years ago, that she needs a 65,000 ton ship. It is a done deal. So, why all this JC and another Vikrant talk? *At most* modify the Vishal deck. And, my suspicion is that such mods will come with the EMALS - let us see.

It is not, or at least should not be, a mutually exclusive proposition. A 65kt Vishal is well and good but fact still remains that the ship will only be commissioned by the mid-2030s. Ideally, we ought to be looking at a two ship class (like the RN's QE & PoW). With the economy chugging along affordability should not be a concern.

In the meantime, we still need an aircraft carrier. The IAC Vikrant is fine but it will have have to enter refit at some point, which is when the IN's air cover will become entirely dependent on the reliability of VikAd. And that is not a comforting thought.

Ordering a second Vikrant would remedy that issue while also preventing the atrophying of the knowledge & skillset developed at CSL through the IAC project, while the IAC-2 is in gestation.

One workable alternative to that would be to select the Navantia-L&T entry for the MRSV contract with the ships order in a carrier-capable configuration. With at least two available at any time that should allow an IN CBG to form up around a core of two LHAs with a combined air complement of almost 50 aircraft (36 F-35Bs + 12 S-70s).

IMVVHO, the next step for India should be the design and build of a naval AMCA prototype, along with the one for the IAF.

Same situation as the IAC-2. The AMCA will only be operational in the mid-2030s. Perhaps even 2040. Just for reference the F-35's production run is expected to conclude in 2037. Putting us back in the same shoes we are today with the Tejas & F-16.

Hard as it is for me to admit, we might have missed have boat on the 5th gen front - for over a decade all we've seen are line drawings of the AMCA and even the Tejas just now entering service.

There is a good argument to be made for dropping the AMCA project entirely to focus our resources on leapfrogging the gap to the next stage. By 2030, the first generation of (flying wing) UCAVs should be entering service. If we can commission the AURA by 2035 it might finally allow us close the gap with the West and particularly China.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 29 May 2017 00:23

I keep hearing this word, leapfrogging, but I dont understand how it actually works in practice. In reality, in technology, there is no such thing as leapfrogging, or if there is, it happens very very occasionally. Instead, technology grows layer by layer, on top of the last generation technology.

Internal combustion engines used the casting and metallurgical technology developed for and by using steam power and external combustion engines. Jet engine powered planes used the fabrication, metallurgical and aerodynamics technology used for and by propeller driven aircraft. Similarly, turbofans built on top of turbojets and supersonic aircraft used technologies developed for subsonic. Composite structures exist along with metallic in aircraft. And mastering FBW means having a good understanding of conventional aerodynamic control.

There is no such thing as leapfrogging and Indian technology managers are fooling themselves if they think they can leapfrog and miss current generation technologies and go on directly to the one coming later.
*This actually has an interesting parallel in Iraq's nuclear program. His engineers consistently failed to produce enriched uranium, but they believed in 'leapfrogging' and were always 'working' on 'mastering' the next generation technology which would be better than the current generation work, which ofcourse was a complete failure. Calutrons, to laser enrichment to centrifuges and so on..

sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sanjayc » 29 May 2017 00:30

If 2.6 Billion People Go To War: India vs. China
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hina-20875

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2017 01:00

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:MKU makes vests in India. it may import the aramid or kevlar.


What else is involved in making a bullet proof vest besides aramid/kevlar? From the link below, I think just the tailoring

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Bulletproof-Vest.html

Aramid IIRC is a 1960s tech used on tires (Michelin?)

Here's a list of aramid makers:

http://www.compositesworld.com/suppliers/product/51

Some company in Gujarat makes it.


its some patent latest greatest variant last i read and as usual our sarkari babus were hoo-ing and haw-ing about getting licensed TOT. as if prc would care two hoots..

yes, not much value add in tailoring the vest itself.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2017 01:11

sudeepj wrote:I keep hearing this word, leapfrogging, but I dont understand how it actually works in practice. In reality, in technology, there is no such thing as leapfrogging, or if there is, it happens very very occasionally. Instead, technology grows layer by layer, on top of the last generation technology.

Internal combustion engines used the casting and metallurgical technology developed for and by using steam power and external combustion engines. Jet engine powered planes used the fabrication, metallurgical and aerodynamics technology used for and by propeller driven aircraft. Similarly, turbofans built on top of turbojets and supersonic aircraft used technologies developed for subsonic. Composite structures exist along with metallic in aircraft. And mastering FBW means having a good understanding of conventional aerodynamic control.

There is no such thing as leapfrogging and Indian technology managers are fooling themselves if they think they can leapfrog and miss current generation technologies and go on directly to the one coming later.
*This actually has an interesting parallel in Iraq's nuclear program. His engineers consistently failed to produce enriched uranium, but they believed in 'leapfrogging' and were always 'working' on 'mastering' the next generation technology which would be better than the current generation work, which ofcourse was a complete failure. Calutrons, to laser enrichment to centrifuges and so on..


Great post. Leapfrogging can be done at least when get the basics right and the whole production to deployment process ironed out and then run for the next greatest thing.

Indian technology managers are any thing but fools and are very risk averse. Its the occasional forum discussion which engages in such wishful aims. I still remember when LCA flew, it was clear it would take many many years plus of hard work to get it into proper shape and in act another one to deploy it as an operational system, given our funding and economic challenges & especially the kind of Govts we elected, twice in a row.

For the AMCA, we just need to ramp up in parallel now BUT we need to still continue with the LCA and variants & not just leave it be. The design has huge potential to be the backbone of our AF in many variants and even LO ones, as versus a VLO like AMCA. ADA actually looked at these too & it can be done. But it takes a common sensical long term approach from MOD, IAF and R&D/Production for a long term strategy for our AF beyond the "next aircraft" and "next S-3XXX which China will buy" and so forth. Unfortunately, that is where we lack. We neither have the long term process in place, and nor do we pour in resources like the PRC et al do to deliver rapid returns - I mean, how much did PRC exactly spend with Israel to literally get the Lavi and its core tech including the FBW, codes etc. And then funded Russia liberally to get a custom designed propulsion plus avionics, all of which PRC then rapidly deployed with local manufacture. The J-20 is no different. We have endless committee meetings and content ourselves with sending out RFP after RPF and patting ourselves on the back that we have furren vendors responding, whereas PRC ends up buying the entire firm's stuff, lock stock and barrel. While we are busy debating on SP's, that too being implemented in typical 1-2-3 style, PRC already started letting private firms into defence to the point many LGB etc designs are direct from smaller vendors. DRDO has literally been shouting from the rooftops that it needs more than just a handful of PSUs to work with. But even its own ex-chief sitting at NITI wagehra cannot sway our babus to be more liberal with the private sector. Meanwhile our pvt firms, knowing how GOI works, well some of them anyhow, are busy signing quasi-comical JVs with screwdrivering onlee with multiple foreign vendors. So this is how the lack of committed and long term support, investment leads you into a hole wherein short term imports are the easy answer & never will we spend enough to actually move beyond JVs rapidly. At shoestring budgets and ad hocism we have done so much. Just imagine the potential with committed long term aims.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, ashishvikas, Theeran, Vinay_GR and 43 guests