Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 14 Feb 2017 02:46

http://cimsec.org/indias-submarine-arm- ... trim/30777

...

An unfortunate spinoff from the Sindhurakshak tragedy (and that of the Russian Kursk) is a loss of confidence in thermal torpedoes and consequent uncertainties in respect of DRDO’s development of the Shakti thermal heavyweight torpedo, which was expected to be the main armament of India’s nuclear submarines and additionally represented an upgrade-option for the Sindhughosh Class.

....

Thermal torps responsible for accident?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Feb 2017 09:18

Austin wrote:I always thought the Naval Variant of Tejas was not a good idea to start with , Single Engine , Over Weight , lacking in Weapons and Persistance due to less fuel carried. They can be carried as experimental program to support further development to gain experience but not an operational fighter

Considering we dont operate dozen of CBG and the best hope we have till 2030 would be 2 Air Craft Carrier fleet which would not carry more than 50-60 aircraft to its full capacity and perhaps at any point in time only one will be operational so make that 30-35 and the other will be in maintenance, We cant afford to have suboptimum solution. The current CBG needs atleast twin engine Rafale class fighter in weight and category considering the threat environment we are in.

Gotta agree. I wish they had tried a twin engined LCA for a Navy variant - would have probably done away with much of the MRCA s**t we are dealing with right now too! If they managed to get close to a 10-11 ton beast with 11 hps and payload of 7 tons with two GE-404s at 85kn. Anyways, coulda, woulda, shoulda, it is what it is.

maz · Post by **maz** » 14 Feb 2017 09:20

Aditya G wrote:Indian Navy Fleet Strength as of today;

02 Aircraft Carrier*
11 Destroyers
14 Frigates
18 Corvette (Missile)
05 Corvette (ASW)
10 OPV
24 FACs (including Super Dvora)

102 Interceptors

06 Minesweepers

16 Submarines**
05 Mini Submarines - unconfirmed if still operational

01 LPD
08 LST
04 LCU
04 LCM

04 Replenishment Tankers

01 Training Ship
04 Training Ship (Sail)

01 Diving Support Vessel
01 Marine Accoustic Research Ship
09 Survey Ship

* INS Viraat to shortly be retired officially
** Incl. one Kilo with accident

That's 146 major ships excluding the interceptors, viraat and kilo

Comments and corrections welcome

My figures show 133 'ships' excluding Viraat, kilo and Betwa and at least 106 small craft - 5 XFAXC (Super Dvora), 21-22 ISVs, 15 Plascoa FIC 1300 and at least 64+ Solas 16.5m FICs

SSK/SSN/SSGN 17 (includes Kalvari)
CV 1
DDGH 11
FFGH 13 (Betwa not counted)
FFGH (P28) -the world's biggest corvette/light frigate - 2
missile corvettes P25/25A - 8
1241RE FACM 10
1241PE ASWV 3
MCMVs (SNMs) 6 - consider as ASW/patrol ships because of RBUs

OPVs 10
Trg ship 1 - consider as OPV
Survey vessels 8 - consider them to be light OPVs

FAC 19 - all are ocean going types
XFAC small 5
ISV 22
FIC at least 79 + c.16 more remaining from 80 hull order from Solas

Amph 14 including 1 LPD, 5 LSTL, 3 LSTM, 5 LCU (2-4 LCMs are part of the LPD and they cannot do indep ops)
Other Aux 6
AOR 4
Total around 239 ships minus 106 FIC and XFAC =133 'ships'

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 14 Feb 2017 09:38

With 2 ships of it's class already launched, any idea if the construction of 3rd ship of P-15b has been started.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2017 10:10

Anil Ambani firm to service over 100 U.S. Navy ships

Anil Ambani group’s Reliance Defence and Engineering inks major contract with the American Navy

Anil Ambani group’s Reliance Defence and Engineering has inked a major contract with the U.S. Navy to provide repair and alteration services for ships of the Seventh Fleet.

This would be the first instance of an Indian company, either public or private, providing logistical support to the U.S. military within Indian territory.

On Monday, the Anil Ambani group firm announced that Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra)-led Reliance Defence and Engineering (RDEL) had signed a Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA) with the U.S. Navy to maintain the vessels of its Seventh Fleet involving 100 vessels operating in the Indian Ocean.

Follow-up to LEMOA

The signing of a MSRA agreement is a follow-up to the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) signed between New Delhi and Washington in August 2016.

“Reliance Shipyard has been selected after a detailed site survey by U.S. Government representatives in end October 2016,” a Rinfra statement said, adding: “This selection by the U.S. Navy is a true recognition of the world-class facility, processes and the high standard of the capability of Reliance Shipyard at Pipavav.”

The statement said that Reliance Shipyard is the first in India to have received MSRA Certification to undertake servicing and repairing work for the vessels of Seventh Fleet.

Currently, these vessels visit Singapore or Japan for such works.

The U.S. Seventh Fleet looks after the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. The vessels will be serviced and repaired from the Reliance Defence owned shipyard in Pipavav in Gujarat.

The Pipavav shipyard was qualified and approved to perform complex repair and alteration services for the US Navy last month after a detailed site survey conducted by the US government representatives in October last year.

In 2015, the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group took over Pipavav Defence, a private shipyard in Gujarat, after getting necessary approvals from various regulators and other government agencies.

Set up in 1997 by Nikhil Gandhi-promoted Sea King Infrastructure Ltd, Pipavav Shipyard was in 2010 allowed to build strategic and defence vessels. Its name was changed to Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. Ltd to emphasize its focus on defence shipbuilding and offshore activities.

According to Reliance the deal is likely to generate ₹ 10,000 crore in revenues in the next five years.

vina · Post by **vina** » 14 Feb 2017 10:48

Aditya G wrote:http://cimsec.org/indias-submarine-arm- ... trim/30777

...

An unfortunate spinoff from the Sindhurakshak tragedy (and that of the Russian Kursk) is a loss of confidence in thermal torpedoes and consequent uncertainties in respect of DRDO’s development of the Shakti thermal heavyweight torpedo, which was expected to be the main armament of India’s nuclear submarines and additionally represented an upgrade-option for the Sindhughosh Class.

....
Thermal torps responsible for accident?

This is exactly what I speculated when the Sindhurakshak incident happened and am posting from what I wrote earlier.

viewtopic.php?t=6622&start=280#p1497698

This has all the signs of a Kursk II. Time to get rid of WWII style Russian thermal torpedoes with oxygen / hydrogen peroxide oxidants and go for mono propellant ones .Get the Varunasta into service ASAP and accelerate the Shakti to get it into service.

viewtopic.php?t=6622&start=280#p1497699

Google for type 93 long lance torpedoes of the IJN and see the dangers and maintenance required to operate oxygen torpedoes and how even an oil spot in the pipes leads to an explosion.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6751&start=80#p1601011

About Sindhurakshak, the root cause has not been determined yet as a hydrogen leak which set off the initial explosion leading to the secondary explosion. If it indeed is the case and the same root cause of hydrogen leak is what led to the Sindhuratna explosion, then, the Navy Chief should have been ASKED TO GO, as it would amount to incompetence.

This twiddling around of thumbs and not raising the Sindhurakshak yet is inexcusable. The root cause of that accident has to be arrived at ASAP! Fortunately with the Sindhuratna it will be easy.

Hydrogen leaks are not "fated" /"vidhi" . There are safety systems that can fix it, requiring no operator intervention and maintenance. Stuff like Hydrogen Recombiners that are used in nuclear power plants like for instance from this Russian company - Elliron or Areva for instance will prevent dangerous hydrogen build up to levels that can lead to an explosion.

That said, if the fire suppression system went off on a false alarm, it would be absolutely damning to the Russian design. The Nerpa incident gives no comfort here.

My suspicion is that the Sindhurakshak was an oxygen torpedo that exploded (very dangerous things, the Japanese invented them during WWII as their Long Lance weapons and gave them great range and invisible running advantages over what the allies had and won many Naval surface battles for them, it seems that the long lance had two tanks, air tanks for starting , with oxygen taking over later when running) , that is exactly like the Kursk incident, while the Sindhuratna is like the Nerpa incident. Both cases of similar failures in Russian service getting replicated in Indian service.

The IN needs to junk dangerous Russian stuff and practices and get into Western levels of safety and reliability.
1) Get rid of oxygen torpedoes and go for monofuel ones (Otto Fuel), get the DRDO Thermal torpedo (running otto fuel) into service ASAP

2) Get passive hydrogen combiners into service in IN boats. Get the BARC and those guys to help out on an emergency basis

3)Phase out the Kilos at the earliest possible. They are past their life spans for at least 4 boats and get the Scorpenes into service ASAP.

4) Restart the HDW line and build the U214 . You need to de risk with 2 boats of different origins. Or a single fault in a particular line will ground the entire fleet.

5) Let L&T and others into the sub building business and let them build the HDW line.

The DRDO Thermal torpedo program is an Otto fuel system (like the American MK48). To this day, nothing comes close to the energy reserve (and hence range and power) of thermal propulsion. Now the silver based batteries and coupled with very advanced permanenent magnet motors in electric ones (like the Whitehead Alenia / German Atlas Elektronik) are getting better and quite competitive (they have the advantage of great part throttle efficiency, run more silently etc.. etc..), but still raw performance wise, it is thermal torpedoes.

The Otto fuel / monopropellant ones don't have the explosion and handling dangers of the Soviet/Imperial Japanese Navy type oxygen ones .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2017 11:04

Is varunastra hwt the ship launched variant and shakti for subs?

I would second vina based on my deep nautical knalege culled from alistair mclean books incl ice station zebra.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 11:09

vina wrote:
Aditya G wrote:http://cimsec.org/indias-submarine-arm- ... trim/30777

Thermal torps responsible for accident?
This is exactly what I speculated when the Sindhurakshak incident happened and am posting from what I wrote earlier.

There is no room for speculation here , its neither the oto fuel torpedo or battery that caused the explosion but SOP while arming the torpedo

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sind ... 33845.html

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, in a written reply to a question, told Rajya Sabha that the accident cannot be blamed on anyone since none of the officers or sailors present inside the submarines survived.

However, he said that disciplinary action against two officers in the chain of command has been initiated for individual lapses.

"Board of Inquiry (BoI) has concluded that the incident onboard INS Sindhurakshak in the night of 13/14 August 2013 was an accident probably induced during the process of arming of the torpedoes.

"Since none of the officers and sailors present inside the submarine survived, it has not been possible to attribute any blame to any individual for failure or negligence, if any," he said.

He said that lessons learnt from the reports of BoI are implemented appropriately.

Corrective steps have been taken by Naval Headquarters with extensive checks on weapon-related safety systems and audit of Standard Operating Procedures on all operational naval units, he said.

"Safety procedures and professional checks have been re-emphasised. Incidents Study and Analysis Cells have been instituted at professional schools wherein lessons learnt are incorporated into professional training. Safety Audits of various units are being regularly conducted," he said.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2017 11:13

Austin wrote:There is no room for speculation here , its neither the oto fuel torpedo or battery that caused the explosion but SOP while arming the torpedo

I'd say in the absence of hard facts, there's room for nothing but speculation.

"was an accident probably induced during"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 11:23

If they were not sure or had high confidence in their report they wont have taken disciplinary action against individuals

he said that disciplinary action against two officers in the chain of command has been initiated for individual lapses.

So they acknowledge there is individual lapses and initiated disciplinary action

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2017 12:17

Austin wrote:If they were not sure or had high confidence in their report they wont have taken disciplinary action against individuals

he said that disciplinary action against two officers in the chain of command has been initiated for individual lapses.

So they acknowledge there is individual lapses and initiated disciplinary action

Where does it say that the lapses in question were responsible for the loss of the boat? Its quite the opposite.

The minister's statement makes that explicitly clear -

Since none of the officers and sailors present inside the submarine survived, it has not been possible to attribute any blame to any individual for failure or negligence, if any.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 12:29

The individual lapses are connected to loss of sub and it's personal , we just don't know how grave those individual lapses are , else what's the point in taking disciinary action against the two in the chain of command if not for the sub incident

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2017 12:45

Austin wrote:The individual lapses are connected to loss of sub and it's personal , we just don't know how grave those individual lapses are , else what's the point in taking disciinary action against the two in the chain of command if not for the sub incident

What's the point?!! If you investigated the incident and found there were lapses in protocol/procedure, not responsible for the accident, but real lapses nonetheless, would you refuse to take action? Give them a pass?

And in any case, speculating about the nature of the lapses is exactly that - speculation.

It doesn't refute (or support) Vina's theory about the accident's cause.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 13:17

There is nothing in Vinas theory there , They have been using Kilos since 1987.

The BOI is the closest to the truth we can get and based on the information they have they think that accident probably induced during the process of arming of the torpedoes.

And disciplinary action is against the two officers are based on BOI

If it does not fits your pre-concieved notion I cant help

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2017 13:43

Austin wrote:There is nothing in Vinas theory there , They have been using Kilos since 1987.

The BOI is the closest to the truth we can get and based on the information they have they think that accident probably induced during the process of arming of the torpedoes.

Word they used is "probably". That is their best guess about what happened. Words you used were "no room for speculation here". That's your absolute certainty about what happened.

And disciplinary action is against the two officers are based on BOI

If it does not fits your pre-concieved notion I cant help

BOIs don't limit themselves to determining the direct cause of the accident. All aspects including peripheral activities & actions are investigated.

And its not 'preconceived notions' its just plain English comprehension. To whit -

it has not been possible to attribute any blame to any individual for failure or negligence, if any

Nowhere does it say that the officers in question are being hauled up for mistakes they made while 'arming the torpedo'.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Feb 2017 13:54

^^ The guys arming the torpedo are no more but these two officers are being disciplined in chain of commands they may or may not be directly involved in that accident we dont know that.

What we know is they are being disciplined for the loss of Sub and its crew as part of chain of command

vina · Post by **vina** » 14 Feb 2017 17:29

Singha wrote:Is varunastra hwt the ship launched variant and shakti for subs?

From what I understand, Varunastra is an electric torpedo , while the Shakti is a thermal torpedo using Otto fuel.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2017 01:17

austin, come on. that article is as authoritative as it gets with the author being both of recent naval vintage and providing detailed information. if he says the navy suspects thermal torpedos were to blame and the local program may get affected, he is most likely right and it is worrisome.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Feb 2017 04:33

Hi maz,

I checked your numbers against mine - highlighting the differences below.

5 XFAXC (Super Dvora),

I have 7 listed;

T80
T81
T82
T83
T84
T85
T86

21-22 ISVs,

I have 23;

T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
T26 Rodman 78
T27 Rodman 78
T28 Rodman 78
T35 Rodman 78
T36 Rodman 78
T37 Rodman 78
T38 Rodman 78
T39 Rodman 78
T40 Rodman 78
T44
T45
T46
T47
T48
T49
T50

Survey vessels 8 - consider them to be light OPVs

You have forgotten INS Makar. So that's 9

J20 INS Nirupak
J15 INS Investigator
J16 INS Jamuna
J17 INS Sutlej
J18 INS Sandhayak
J19 INS Nirdeshak
J21 INS Darshak
J22 INS Sarvekshak
J31 INS Makar

FAC 19 - all are ocean going types

I am missing 2;

T61 INS Trinkat
T65 INS Bangaram
T66 INS Bitra
T67 INS Batti Malv
T68 INS Baratang
T69 INS Car Nicobar
T70 INS Chetlat
T71 INS Kora Divh
T72 INS Cheriyam
T73 INS Cankarso
T74 INS Kondul
T75 INS Kalpeni
T76 INS Kabra
T77 INS Koswari
T78 INS Karuva
T91 INS Tarmugli
T93 INS Tihayu

AOR 4

AOR means?

On classification, referring Project-28 ships as FFGH is totally out of place as there are no guided missiles onboard. So I am sticking with the official IN designation as Corvette.

I have identical figures for ISVs and FICs. Agree LCMs should not be counted separately.

Counting the auxiliaries is a real challenge. I am listing out some for records. I am not sure if these are official names with Indian Naval Ship titles or just names.

Tug ? A51 INS Gaj
Tug Bhim Class INS Bhim
Tug Bhim Class INS Balshil
Tug Bhim Class INS Ajral
Tug Madan Singh Class INS Madan Singh
Tug Madan Singh Class INS Shambhu Singh
Tug Balram Class INS Balram
Tug Balram Class INS Bajrang
Tug Bahadur Class INS Bahadur
Tug Bahadur Class INS Ananta
Tug Bahadur Class INS Aja
Tug Anand Class INS Anand
Tug Anand Class INS Atal
Tug B.C Dutt Class INS B.C.Dutt
Tug B.C Dutt Class INS Tarafdar
Tug Nakul Class INS Nakul
Tug Nakul Class INS Arjun
Tug Arga Class INS Arga
Tug Arga Class INS Bali
Tug Arga Class INS Anup
Tug ? INS Sarthi
Tug Balwan
Tug Sahayak
Tug Anjan Class INS Anjan
Tug Anjan Class INS Angad
Tug Anjan Class INS Anup
Tug Anjan Class INS Athak
Tug Anjan Class INS Ajral
Barge (Fuel) INS Prema
Barge (Fuel) INS Pushpa
Oiler INS Palan
Barge (Water) INS Pulakesin-1
Barge (Water) INS Ambuda
Barge (Water) INS Pamba
Floating Dock FDN-1

Do you have pictures and info on the Cosmos submarines? whats their status?

maz wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Indian Navy Fleet Strength as of today;

That's 146 major ships excluding the interceptors, viraat and kilo

Comments and corrections welcome
My figures show 133 'ships' excluding Viraat, kilo and Betwa and at least

106 small craft -
5 XFAXC (Super Dvora),
21-22 ISVs,
15 Plascoa FIC 1300
and at least 64+ Solas 16.5m FICs

SSK/SSN/SSGN 17 (includes Kalvari)
CV 1
DDGH 11
FFGH 13 (Betwa not counted)
FFGH (P28) -the world's biggest corvette/light frigate - 2
missile corvettes P25/25A - 8
1241RE FACM 10
1241PE ASWV 3
MCMVs (SNMs) 6 - consider as ASW/patrol ships because of RBUs

OPVs 10
Trg ship 1 - consider as OPV
Survey vessels 8 - consider them to be light OPVs

FAC 19 - all are ocean going types
XFAC small 5
ISV 22
FIC at least 79 + c.16 more remaining from 80 hull order from Solas

Amph 14 including 1 LPD, 5 LSTL, 3 LSTM, 5 LCU (2-4 LCMs are part of the LPD and they cannot do indep ops)
Other Aux 6
AOR 4
Total around 239 ships minus 106 FIC and XFAC =133 'ships'

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Feb 2017 15:39

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... ars-250550

The navy has on Friday sealed a Rs200-crore deal with Tata subsidiary Nova Integrated System Ltd for procurement of over two dozen surveillance radars, said to be first such contract by an armed force under the ‘Buy and Make’ category.

The procurement of surface surveillance radars (SSR) is part of the navy’s plan for modernisation of its fleet and these systems will also be installed on board ships under construction.

“A contract between Nova Integrated Systems Ltd and Indian Navy for procurement of surface surveillance radars (SSR) has been concluded today,” a navy statement said. It said the deal is in line with the government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative.

Nova Integrated Systems Ltd is a fully owned subsidiary of Tata Advanced System Ltd and it will indigenously manufacture these radars in collaboration with Terma of Denmark. “This contract marks the entry of Indian private industry in production of hi-tech sensors for Indian Navy,” the statement said.

It said the government’s drive to modernise the armed forces and build an Indian defence industrial base with participation of the private industry has got a major boost with the signing of the contract. Under the deal, over two dozen radars will be procured at a cost of Rs200 crore. “This is the first contract concluded under the Buy and Make category,” it added.

Apparently its the Terma Scanter 6000. As many as 24 units - so this must be replacing existing installations as well.

https://www.terma.com/media/122862/6000 ... b_2010.pdf

This cannot replace RAWL. What is it for?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2017 17:51

the PDF says it all - its a ++ option than the typical "kelvin hughes" navigational radar atop the bridge. will deal with the FAC and drone threat in littoral environment. also good for crowded shipping lanes.

looks like a small round white bar rotating quickly on a small post.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 18 Feb 2017 20:28

Aditya G wrote: Nova Integrated Systems Ltd is a fully owned subsidiary of Tata Advanced System Ltd and it will indigenously manufacture these radars in collaboration with Terma of Denmark. “This contract marks the entry of Indian private industry in production of hi-tech sensors for Indian Navy,” the statement said.

Sounds more like import from Denmark, screw driver together in India and re-sell to the Indian navy.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 19 Feb 2017 00:51

This option will provide capability hitherto unavailable on the likes of a saryu class OPV.

Though personally I would have preferred naval 3d-car coupled with satellite uplink on our OPVs.

Singha wrote:the PDF says it all - its a ++ option than the typical "kelvin hughes" navigational radar atop the bridge. will deal with the FAC and drone threat in littoral environment. also good for crowded shipping lanes.

looks like a small round white bar rotating quickly on a small post.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 20 Feb 2017 04:47

The article on subs is very informative, the Scorpene leak isn't addressed though, a fix there might see a follow on order there?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2017 10:48

Neshant,for decades we've been doing that with the HSA (now Thales) main radars on our surface ships!

Reg the SR tragedy, a news report,which was swiftly removed in later editions quoted a witness who said that one "missile" (may have been a torpedo),hit the side wall of the dock while it was being loaded. It could've been damaged and as the loading was at night,damage may not have been spotted.After it was loaded,it may've gone haywire leading to the catastrophe.

Too late to "dump" the Kilos.The entire lot is/has been upgraded.One in a recent exercise with the USN ,"sank" a Los Angeles SSN too! They'll serve us for another 10 years at the most.With the 6 Scorpenes now being delivered at the rate of 1-2 /yr,by 2020 we should have the lot in service,hopefully with their torpedoes! Another Akula will join the fleet,and if the G-to-G deal comes through,we may get 6 new U-boats to complement and eventually replace the 4 U-209s.Since the number of 24 subs has officially been determined as inadequate,another line of new conventional subs from Russia may be the answer.Either the now perfected Amurs,said to be cheaper than Kilos,or even the arriving Kalina class. The IN's 6 SSNs planned for,could incorporate some of the tech that Russia is planning for a new class of attack boats smaller than the Yasen.The IN requires several types,some best suited for the littorals to deal with the PN,and others to deal with the PLAN. Here N-subs are the best option,but even AIP subs operating in the Indo-China Sea,with logistic facilities in Vietnam,could counter China's plan to base its own subs at Gwadar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Feb 2017 10:55

Karan M wrote:austin, come on. that article is as authoritative as it gets with the author being both of recent naval vintage and providing detailed information. if he says the navy suspects thermal torpedos were to blame and the local program may get affected, he is most likely right and it is worrisome.

I am quoting offical MOD report which says accident caused during arming of torpedoes and thats the closest to the truth one can get because people who were at the time are no more to tell us what happened.

I dont know which author you are talking about and how his version can be more truthful than MOD version of the event , considering IN operates this subs since 1987 , Regarding Thermal Torpedoes DRDO new HWT Shakti has thermal propulsion , UK Spearfish and US MK48 variant has thermal propulsion

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Feb 2017 17:46

Austin wrote: Regarding Thermal Torpedoes DRDO new HWT Shakti has thermal propulsion , UK Spearfish and US MK48 variant has thermal propulsion

Read what I wrote earlier , and also again carefully. There is Thermal propulsion AND Thermal propulsion. The Spearfish and Mk48 use Otto II fuel and dont have the handling issues of the WWII style thermal torpedoes the Russians (and hence we) have in service. There is a world of difference between the two. The Shakti , like the Mk48 and Spearfish is an Otto fuel torpedo. Yeah, it will be far superior in terms of safety and handling to what we presently have.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Feb 2017 18:05

vina wrote:
Austin wrote: Regarding Thermal Torpedoes DRDO new HWT Shakti has thermal propulsion , UK Spearfish and US MK48 variant has thermal propulsion
Read what I wrote earlier , and also again carefully. There is Thermal propulsion AND Thermal propulsion. The Spearfish and Mk48 use Otto II fuel and dont have the handling issues of the WWII style thermal torpedoes the Russians (and hence we) have in service. There is a world of difference between the two. The Shakti , like the Mk48 and Spearfish is an Otto fuel torpedo. Yeah, it will be far superior in terms of safety and handling to what we presently have.

All Kilo submarines used Type 53-65KE Torpedo that uses Oxygen-Kerosine as fuel , Not to be confused with 53-65M or basic 53-65 that uses peroxide fuel , They also use Electrical/Battery powered torpedo TEST-71ME

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2017 18:53

India to Send Second Kilo Class Submarine to Russia for Refit in May
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017021710 ... ssia-navy/

Xcpt:

India has contracted Russia for refitting four of its nine kilo class submarines at cost worth approximately $800 million. Another Kilo class INS Sindhukesari is undergoing a similar refit process since last year. According to the agreement with Russian shipyard, Indian Navy will offload another two kilo-class submarine to L&T Katupalli shipyard in Tamil Nadu next month.

Indian Navy needs at least 24 submarines to maintain a Minimum Force Level but it has only about 13 boats. This year Indian navy expects two of its long-awaited Scorpene class submarine to be commissioned. Out of 13, half of the boats are used in restricted manner or not at optimum level and are kept as war reserves.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Feb 2017 14:10

Austin wrote: All Kilo submarines used Type 53-65KE Torpedo that uses Oxygen-Kerosine as fuel , Not to be confused with 53-65M or basic 53-65 that uses peroxide fuel

Peroxide is NOT fuel, but oxidiser, (high test peroxide instantaneously decomposes to superheated steam and oxygen..it is also used in rockets as kerosene + peroxide combination, like the British Black Arrow). Extremely hazardous, especially in confined spaces like Subs and a massive explosion hazard. Time to move to Otto Fuel type thermal torpedoes which the west did long ago , but the Russians/SU didn't (life is cheap in the SU/Russia), safety is an afterthought.

Edit /Adding. After posting above, I looked up the wiki entry for [urll=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-test_peroxide] HTP[/url]. It looks like the west went to Otto Fuel after paying in blood with sub accidents. HMS Sidon went down as a result of a HTP powered torpedo exploding. The Kursk too went down because the practice Type 65 torpedo exploded due to a HTP leak and it now looks like the Sinduhrakshak too went down because of failure in an Oxygen or HTP torpedo (don't know which,.. but both are terribly dangerous).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2017 16:15

vina wrote:Sinduhrakshak too went down because of failure in an Oxygen or HTP torpedo (don't know which,.. but both are terribly dangerous).

They were arming the torpedo as per MOD report " an accident probably induced during the process of arming of the torpedoes "
Dont understand Arming means but probably SOP not followed

Subsequent statements from MOD says "Lessons learnt from the reports of Board's of Inquiry (BoI) are implemented appropriately. Corrective steps have been taken by Naval Headquarters with extensive checks on weapon related safety systems and audit of Standard Operating Procedures on all operational naval units," the minister has informed parliament"

Well we have lost few aircraft due to mid air explosion just because Bombs were not correctly mated with Aircraft properly by ground crew as SOP were not followed

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Feb 2017 17:10

Breaking News: INS Betwa back on even keel

IN targets to get it back to operations by April 2018

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2017 17:38

Long overduie,should ease the IN's burden of supporting the bird.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18527/ ... K17K9J96M8

Facility For MiG 29K Carrier Aircraft
Our Bureau09:05 AM, February 22, 2017
MiG 29K Naval Carrier Aircraft
India plans to set up an ‘intermediate’ engine repair facility for its MiG 29k fighter jets at the Indian Navy base at Goa.
The move was taken by the government for improving serviceability of the carrier aircraft as Indian Navy has 45 such jets that operate from sea-borne aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov i.e INS Vikramaditya, Sputnik news reported Tuesday.
Russia has completed the delivery of all the contracted fourth generation multi role fighters in 2016.

“This was a long overdue measure. There was always an understanding between India and Russia that once these aircrafts come, a repair facility will be installed but somehow it got delayed. Indian Navy was pressurizing to government for more than 2-3 years for repair facility in Goa where squadron is based.” said Indian Naval Commander Abhijit Singh (retired).
“As we know that serviceability of MiG 29K jets is very low and Indian Navy was struggling to find spare parts for the aircraft, sanctioning of this repair facility is definitely a welcome step,” Singh added.
India’s top auditor CAG had criticized the Russian manufacturer for low level of serviceability and engine capacity.
According to revealed CAG last year in its audit “The serviceability of MiG29K was unsatisfactory, ranging from 15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent. However, the serviceability of the MiG 29KUB trainer aircraft was comparatively better, ranging from 21.30 per cent to 47.14 per cent,”.
The service life of the aircraft is 6000 hrs or 25 calendar years whichever is earlier while service life of RD-33MK engine fitted on MiG29K/KUB is 10 years/4000 hours with an overhaul life of 1000 hours.
more..

“Repair facility is basically only to create indigenous capability to make sure that aircraft are always in serviceable condition. For this Russia may provide equipment and training to Indian Navy. But, serviceability will all depend on how Russian manufacturers supply spare parts to India,” Abhijit Singh added.
Last month Russia had announced that it would set-up an after-sales service center in India for maintenance of MiG-29 fighter jets for its foreign clients.
“We offer the contractual after-sales service to our foreign clients. Beside the delivery of the aircraft, we are ready to create the maintenance centers on the territory of the client … Such a center to service MiG-29 jets is expected to be opened in India in 2017,” Sergey Korotkov, the vice-president of the United Aircraft Corporation for innovations said.
The Mig-29, Fulcrum NATO-codename, is a single-seat, highly maneuverable fighter aircraft designed to engage airborne targets such as aircraft, UAVs and cruise missiles.
It features a limited air-to-surface/ ground strike capability. The Mig-29 is the Soviet counterpart to US F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft. More than 1,300 Mig-29s have been produced for 27 countries worldwide.

And...
Russia To Pitch Upgraded MiG-29KUB For Indian Naval Fighter Jet Procurement
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18479/ ... K18o9J96M8

For this to ssucceed,two things have to happen.First,wiht the setting up of a service facility for the 29Ks,their servcieability must dramatically improve.Secondly,the proposed bird must have a significant leap in capability.If there is a naval variant of the MIG-35 planned and available at much lower cost than any western bird it would be highly competitive.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 22 Feb 2017 18:09

Philip wrote:Long overduie,should ease the IN's burden of supporting the bird.

According to revealed CAG last year in its audit “The serviceability of MiG29K was unsatisfactory, ranging from 15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent. However, the serviceability of the MiG 29KUB trainer aircraft was comparatively better, ranging from 21.30 per cent to 47.14 per cent,”.

Wow. That's quiet low.

But shouldn't the support come from MiG/Russia.. In addition to being an important long term Customer, didn't we practically fund the development of this aircraft ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2017 20:34

https://twitter.com/VishnuNDTV/status/8 ... 3577398272

The Navy frigate, INS Betwa which collapsed on its side after an accident in dry dock is now afloat and her refit will be complete on time

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Feb 2017 20:38

I hope that they publish pictures of the floated ship. Let's see what she looks like.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 22 Feb 2017 21:25

INS Betwa made upright again, may be operational by April 2018 - Defencenews.In

Indian Navy's missile frigate INS Betwa, which toppled over during undocking in December last year, has been made upright and will be operational before April 2018, an Indian Navy official said.

The Indian Navy on January 16 signed a contract with Resolve Marine to salvage the 3,800-tonne Brahmaputra-class frigate. The cost of getting the ship upright was around Rs 20 crore.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 22 Feb 2017 21:57

kmkraoind wrote:INS Betwa made upright again, may be operational by April 2018 - Defencenews.In

Indian Navy's missile frigate INS Betwa, which toppled over during undocking in December last year, has been made upright and will be operational before April 2018, an Indian Navy official said.

The Indian Navy on January 16 signed a contract with Resolve Marine to salvage the 3,800-tonne Brahmaputra-class frigate. The cost of getting the ship upright was around Rs 20 crore.

A timelapse video of the whole exercise will be worth watching and learning from.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 23 Feb 2017 16:44

Pratyush wrote:I hope that they publish pictures of the floated ship. Let's see what she looks like.

Manu PubbyVerified account‏@manupubby_ET 2m2 minutes ago
Back up. INS Betwa made upright by Naval Dockyard, Mumbai and salvage firm M/s Resolve Marine. Operation completed in under two months.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Feb 2017 19:44

Indian Navy Inks Deal for 31 Hi-Tech Surface Surveillance Radars

https://sputniknews.com/military/201702 ... adar-nova/