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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2018 04:06

sudeepj wrote:Rakesh ji, I am not sure a nuclear power is necessary for a carrier to make a difference. Even if the carrier itself is nuclear, the planes are not and after a couple of weeks of operations, the carrier needs to take on aviation kerosene so it can continue to function as a weapons platform. Nuclear power does give advantages, particularly if your goal is to operate in the Pacific with vast distances and no nearby bases. If the farthest distance an Indian Carrier Battle Group operates is around malacca, a conventionally fueled carrier can be quite effective both in battle and occasional patrols.

Aiyoo! Saar, Let's drop the ji? I am not worthy of ji.

And you are more or less spot on....that is if the Indian CBG is to operate in and around Malacca, then a conventionally powered aircraft carrier can be just as effective. And as per the Indian Navy itself, their primary zone of operations is in the IOR. However, the Navy is the one asking for a nuclear powered, aircraft carrier. That got soundly rejected by the babus in the MoD. Going further down that path, even EMALS would be a moot point for the IN. A regular catapult - as in the Nimitz Class or on the Charles De Gaulle - would be fine.

But if the IN is looking to mimic carrier ops - covering vast expanses of ocean - like the Nimitz or Gerald Ford Classes or even the Charles De Gaulle, then a nuclear powered vessel makes perfect sense. But the Navy keeps emphasizing that the IOR is their main focus. So no wonder, the MoD Babus rejected the idea of a nuclear powered vessel.

No argument there.

CATOBAR allows your carrier to have organic AEW (Chopper borne AEW is just not the same), sustain increased pace of combat operations, confidently take on land based fighters and finally, influence a land battle. You have the point about the carrier needing support, excuse me, ass backwards and fundamentally wrong.

Its the rest of the fleet that needs air cover by the carrier to confidently go in a region contested by either naval or land based air power. Without the carrier, virtually the entire Indian fleet will not venture into the strike radius of a Mirage/P3 based in Karachi. Even the best Indian naval SAM is outranged by the vintage cruise missiles owned by Pak. Once they locate the fleet, they can continue to remain outside the envelope of the SAM while taking pot shots at the fleet itself.

Without the carrier, specifically a CATOBAR carrier, any navy can not truly call itself a blue water force.


Navy's new £3.5b aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth needs protecting by FRENCH warships
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/82904 ... -Falklands

Britain's new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth will be forced to rely on French frigates to protect it from attack, the Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday.

When the PN's Agosta 90B and Type 039Bs coming knocking, the Vikrant carries no sonars. How are they going to detect them? The same is true for the Vikramaditya. The Sea King Mk 42B - to be carried aboard both vessels - are not the greatest, especially against Agosta 90Bs and Type 039Bs. In fact the Navy is right now having a competition to replace the Sea King who is well past her prime. To protect the carrier, you need dedicated submarine hunters like the Delhi Class, Kolkata Class (destroyers) and Shivalik Class, Talwar Class (frigates) to do the job. Send an aircraft carrier out into the Arabian Sea, without a battle group and she will either be sunk or rendered inoperable by PN submarines.

An aircraft carrier's greatest enemy comes from not surface vessels or from aerial targets (which air power aboard an aircraft carrier can take care of). Her greatest threat comes from a submarine. And the PLAN has a sizeable fleet of them and so will the PN by the end of the next decade. Now there is that age old argument ---> the ocean is vast, an aircraft carrier is hard to detect and thus the sub threat is overblown. I would beg to differ. A US Navy's carrier strike group consists of;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_b ... tle_Groups

US Navy
1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense)
2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare)
1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates

This is a sample CBG of the French Navy...from the same link above...

1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Rubis Class submarine
2 anti-submarine destroyers
1 or 2 anti-air destroyers (Horizon or Cassard class)
1 stealth frigate in forward patrol
1 supply ship

What happens to the aircraft carrier's air power, if for whatever reason carrier operations are not available at that point in time? No point in having a 50+ aircraft fleet, if the carrier cannot launch them. At that point, for defence you need a Guided Missile Cruiser and Anti-Submarine Destroyers or Frigates. So let's say an anti-ship missile strikes the Vikramaditya and now the flat top is compromised. How is she going to fight any further? She will be unable to.

A CBG is symbiotic, they both need each other for survival. But no Navy will send out an aircraft carrier out into the middle of a conflict...all by herself. That is foolishness. A Kolkata, Delhi, Shivalik or Talwar can go out into the open ocean all alone, provided she has an effective helo fleet (S-70B for ASW), a towed array sonar and a hull mounted sonar. The first two are right now lacking. Everything else on those vessels are fairly up to date - radars, weapons, sensors, etc.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Ankit Desai » 31 Jan 2018 05:19

PMO raps Defence Ministry over delay in $3.75-b Scorpene submarine project

Posting in full.

Miffed with inordinate delays in the delivery of six Scorpene-class submarines to the Indian Navy under the $3.75-billion P75 programme, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has rapped the Defence Ministry for not taking stringent action against Naval Group of France (formerly DCNS) and Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd (MDL).

As a result, in an “unusually strong step”, a high-powered team from the Defence Ministry, led by Joint Secretary and Acquisition Manager (Maritime Systems), Ravi Kant, was sent to Paris last week to “engage with the vendors and communicate unhappiness of the Indian government on continuing delays on the project”, sources told BusinessLine.

Further delay

The MoD team, which came back from France last weekend, found out that the entire project, which has already been delayed by six years, will face additional two years hold-up mainly due to procedural issues in the procurement of equipments that are used in building the submarines, sources said.

Apparently, the Defence Ministry has told the Naval Group and MDL that the delay is “unacceptable”. Even if all issues get sorted, it will be at least 2023 by the time Navy gets the final sixth submarine, sources added.

So far, only the first submarine – Kalvari – out of the six submarines that are being built in MDL, under technology transfer from Naval Group, was inducted into the Navy’s fleet in September 2016.

The P-75 programme was approved in 2005 and the first submarine was orignially scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2012, and final and the sixth one, by 2016.

While the second submarine – Khanderi – was launched in January 2017 and is now undergoing sea trials, the third, Karanj, will be launched on Wednesday in Mumbai by Sunil Lanba, the Chief of Naval Staff.

Data breach

Due to delay in equipment from France, delivery of fourth, fifth and sixth submarines are likely to be further delayed by two years. Additionally, the programme also suffered a “major setback” in the wake of critical data leak of the Indian submarine from Naval Group, an issue which has raised concerns within the Defence Ministry, sources said.

The Naval Group got hit by a massive data leak in 2016, in which sensitive data of the submarines was leaked, which almost jeopardised the Scorpene programme in India.

Sources in Naval Group stated that the initial delay is indeed “justifiable”, considering the complexity of the project and the fact that all the submarines were built in India for the first time.

Meanwhile, the request for a follow-on order to built three or more submarines under the P75 programme by MDL and Naval Group floated last year has also been stalled by the Defence Ministry.


-Ankit

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5986
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nachiket » 31 Jan 2018 05:55

Philip wrote:Amur will be cheapest, fastest and the only item of doubt was its AIP system now back in prod. and anyway our DRDO AIP system is almost perfected and can be used.
These boats can carry BMos most important factor.German U-2boats for the 75-I req.Amurs as Kilo replacements.We are nowhere near a Desi design.

Hogwash! The Amur is still vaporware. There isn't a single boat of the type completed yet. And no AMur cannot carry the Brahmos. There is no diesel-electric submarine in the world that can carry the Brahmos without significant redesign to add a VLS module. Brochure claims and scale models do not count.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2018 06:15


Extremely depressing.

I have been with BR since its inception back in late '96 / early '97. There has not been a single naval platform that has arrived on time in these past 20+ years. Not ONE SINGLE platform. Delays are part & parcel of all Indian Naval projects.

But the submarine arm is especially hit bad.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby V_Raman » 31 Jan 2018 06:53

Lets say India is forced to place an emergency order for subs to be delivered in 3 years - what is the best option? Kilo?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4487
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2018 06:55

Yes, Kilo onlee. None of the others (HDW, Saab or Naval Group) can deliver in the time frame required.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48749
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2018 10:04


Vips
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vips » 31 Jan 2018 10:21

Rakesh wrote:Yes, Kilo onlee. None of the others (HDW, Saab or Naval Group) can deliver in the time frame required.


We also have the option of Upgraded/Modernised 209 that South Korea builds.They will be more preferable then the base/pen queen Kilo.
The Koreans are very fast in churning out their boats and at not so hefty price tags.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 31 Jan 2018 10:28

Rakesh wrote:When the PN's Agosta 90B and Type 039Bs coming knocking, the Vikrant carries no sonars. How are they going to detect them? The same is true for the Vikramaditya. The Sea King Mk 42B - to be carried aboard both vessels - are not the greatest, especially against Agosta 90Bs and Type 039Bs. In fact the Navy is right now having a competition to replace the Sea King who is well past her prime. To protect the carrier, you need dedicated submarine hunters like the Delhi Class, Kolkata Class (destroyers) and Shivalik Class, Talwar Class (frigates) to do the job. Send an aircraft carrier out into the Arabian Sea, without a battle group and she will either be sunk or rendered inoperable by PN submarines.


Vikrant carries several sonars, mounted on the SeaKings. None of the destroyers and frigates will hunt subs using their organic sonars, they are capital assets and the captain will not be smart to let a sub come within torpedo range when he has a stand off weapon system in the SeaKing (the flying frigate!) or the S70 etc. The whole point is to kill the sub before it can get off a shot!

In the case of the Vikad, the Indian CBG will have two anti sub corvettes (P28s) running sweeps ahead of the fleet, while the sea kings sanitize the area in the vicinity of the fleet. The fleet itself will go at a high speed in an unpredictable pattern not allowing any sub lucky enough to find it to develop a firing solution.

An aircraft carrier's greatest enemy comes from not surface vessels or from aerial targets (which air power aboard an aircraft carrier can take care of). Her greatest threat comes from a submarine. And the PLAN has a sizeable fleet of them and so will the PN by the end of the next decade. Now there is that age old argument ---> the ocean is vast, an aircraft carrier is hard to detect and thus the sub threat is overblown. I would beg to differ. A US Navy's carrier strike group consists of;.....


Even if the DE sub knows the location of the CBG, it will not be able to catch up with it. If it does catch up to it, it will be the hunted, not the hunter.

What happens to the aircraft carrier's air power, if for whatever reason carrier operations are not available at that point in time? No point in having a 50+ aircraft fleet, if the carrier cannot launch them. At that point, for defence you need a Guided Missile Cruiser and Anti-Submarine Destroyers or Frigates. So let's say an anti-ship missile strikes the Vikramaditya and now the flat top is compromised. How is she going to fight any further? She will be unable to.


What happens to a soldier if his rifle stops firing in the middle of a battle? These hypotheticals are nonsensical. Its the CBG that is the complete system, any individual component is much weaker without the support of the other. Its like saying tanks are not useful without infantry therefore lets not have tanks, only have infantry.

A Kolkata, Delhi, Shivalik or Talwar can go out into the open ocean all alone, provided she has an effective helo fleet (S-70B for ASW), a towed array sonar and a hull mounted sonar.


Why will any of these platforms not be vulnerable to the DE sub while the carrier is uniquely so? employing these platforms individually does nt make any sense at all and is against conventional military wisdom of concentrating forces. These platforms carry one or two choppers with two or three flight crews. How many hours can the choppers be up hunting the subs? Can they provide a 24x7 coverage? Even if they do, what if the enemy launches air attacks? Only a fool captain of Kolkata or Delhi will be towing a patang behind him hoping to catch a DE sub and putting his capital ship at risk.

If functioning as a CBG though, there will be multiple choppers sanitizing an area before the CBG moves into the safe box. And then, it will be the anti sub corvettes that move in first, utilizing the same towed and hull mounted sonars. The CBG will provide protection against air while also providing intelligence against the enemy surface and sub fleet. The planes will also mount attacks against land based targets as also the enemy fleet while remaining out of range of their weapons systems.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 31 Jan 2018 10:33

Rakesh wrote:

Extremely depressing.

I have been with BR since its inception back in late '96 / early '97. There has not been a single naval platform that has arrived on time in these past 20+ years. Not ONE SINGLE platform. Delays are part & parcel of all Indian Naval projects.

But the submarine arm is especially hit bad.


How many of the Army’s and IAF’s projects were on time? Delays are not IN specific, that’s for sure. The recurring theme for the Scorpenes and the Vikrant and the Kolkata and the Vikramaditya and many others are the inevitable delays in firangi parts and negotiations.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3880
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 31 Jan 2018 13:25

ramana wrote:Third boat INS Karanj launched.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/958557688006397952


P 15B looks beautiful and almost complete. Too bad russian aspect again delays yet another project.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18327
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2018 14:58

Great to see the 3rd. Scorpene hit the water. The GOI must now take a careful decision on the follow on subs to be built ta MDL.They could do a G-to-G
number on the same,ckg. out with Germany for U-boats,Russia for Amurs and France for a new sub design not afflicted by the Scorpene leaks.How they will do this though is a mystery as they've promised OZ never to give India superior sub tech.

The problem is not country specific but our flawed procurement policy.IT a few years ago showed us that any acquisition had to overcome 11 hurdles in the MOD before an order was placed.Scorpene delays due to some key components not being ordered with the sub deal. M2K upgrades stalled becos of a spat between HAL and the IAF reg. the labour charges for the hideously expensive upgrades,%50M+ a pop,which will go up even further adding labour costs! each wants the other to pay for extra expenditure. OEMs simply do not keep large stocks of components,etc. readily available on the shelves like stuff in a supermarket.Only after an order is placed do they start to manufacture the same. Which is why the demand now that OEMs set up their own/partnered MRO outfits with adequate key spares for round 5 yrs. or so.The setting up of these entities will dramatically improve aircraft availability as in the case of MKIs.

I've for long had the feeling that the deals are deliberately negotiated with loopholes for extra expenditure that can be claimed by the OEM,just like the CBI cases with loopholes as wide as stable doors allowing the high and mighty to get off on any scam! Since the armed forces are deliberately left out of the negotiations,the MOD babus have a field day, in drafting their deal any which way!

Secondly,there is huge competition to get orders.One rival throws mud at the other and vice versa. When the DPSA deal was on the verge of being sealed,Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram's son and his paramour,were kidnapped in Delhi and later found safe by the cops ,but with sleazy pics of the two together-seemed to have been taken by the lovebirds themselves ,along with....some papers relating to the DPSA/Jag deal! Surya mag published the pics ,a mag edited at that time by a certain Mrs. M.Gandhi,wife of one S.Gandhi! Despite this we went ahead with the Jag. Still going strong like our MIG-21 Bisons of an even older generation!

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vips » 31 Jan 2018 20:25

INDIAN NAVY LAUNCHES 3RD SCORPENE-CLASS SUBMARINE INS KARANJ IN MUMBAI.

Speaking on the ocassion, Admiral Lanba said that the launch of INS Karanj marked a significant departure from the manning and training philosophy that was adopted for the first two submarines, adding that from the present vessel onwards, the Navy would be fully self-reliant in the training and certification processes.


A sophisticated and state-of-the-art Shore Integration Facility has been developed at MDL for integration and simulation of various equipment of the Scorpene submarine combat system for which there was no facility available in the country.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3921
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 31 Jan 2018 20:38

^^^
What are they going to do with that Scorpene "sophisticated and state-of-the-art Shore Integration Facility" after the program ends in another 2-to-3 years with the delivery of the last 3 boats?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 31 Jan 2018 20:52

srai wrote:^^^
What are they going to do with that Scorpene "sophisticated and state-of-the-art Shore Integration Facility" after the program ends in another 2-to-3 years with the delivery of the last 3 boats?


And HAL’s MKI facilities as the Su-30 winds down.

I hope we “nationalize” them for our purpose irregardless of contract. We need to make ToT actual ownership of the technology. No more being the one patsy that follows the firangis’ restrictive contract stipulation to the T.

Look at South Korea and their German Changbobo U-Boats. They got ToT and are now hawking them for sale.

Hell, even Turkey! They took the Agusta Westland ToT in the T-129 and is selling that to Pakistan.

Time to follow suit. ToT should mean we OWN the tech.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18327
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2018 20:54

Training purposes.Don't forget that the subs have a very strict .maintenance regime requiring repair/refit at pre-determined intervals. These must be done only in India even though much eqpt. is French.Later on when the AIP modules if at all are added, the SIF facility will still be needed.Improvements to the combat system wi inevitably take place and simulation ashore invaluable.

Chola, that is the responsibility of our babus who diberately keep the forces out of deal negotiations.When we buy systems in large number and build the same over here, we must be allowed to export locally made eqpt.The OEM of course can get a royalty for export sales in the terms of the deal.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 719
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nam » 01 Feb 2018 01:44


John
BRFite
Posts: 1590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 01 Feb 2018 05:04

^ Sadly very slow progress since Jan 2017 weapon system including main gun have not been installed. Highly unlikely it will be ready for trials till 2019 or later.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18327
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 01 Feb 2018 06:54

There was a report about funds crunch hitting naval programmes/shipbuilding.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3880
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 01 Feb 2018 08:27

Philip wrote:There was a report about funds crunch hitting naval programmes/shipbuilding.


Isn't the delay because of engine delivery issues from Ukraine?

John
BRFite
Posts: 1590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 01 Feb 2018 08:48

Karthik S wrote:
Philip wrote:There was a report about funds crunch hitting naval programmes/shipbuilding.


Isn't the delay because of engine delivery issues from Ukraine?

Engine delays ( perhaps cause launch of last two vessels to be delayed) doesn’t explain the slow pace in which vessel is being fitted out. Looking at pics at least another 1-2 years left before trials and another year of trails so you are looking at 2021 before it’s inducted.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Ankit Desai » 01 Feb 2018 09:12

It can be INS Mormugao which slated to be commissioned in 2020.

-Ankit

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3880
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 01 Feb 2018 09:25

John wrote:
Karthik S wrote:
Isn't the delay because of engine delivery issues from Ukraine?

Engine delays ( perhaps cause launch of last two vessels to be delayed) doesn’t explain the slow pace in which vessel is being fitted out. Looking at pics at least another 1-2 years left before trials and another year of trails so you are looking at 2021 before it’s inducted.


Yes 2021 is the new commissioning year coz of engine delay. Perhaps that's the reason they are going slow with fitment.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18327
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 01 Feb 2018 14:19

We've not experienced engine delays from the UKR before,perhaps due to the eco problems the UKR is having after the right wing coup that ousted the former pro-Ru. leadership.I think all our AN-32s being upgraded were delivered on time. Only the Ru FFGs (Adm.Grig.) which India wants have not had their engines delivered,which we've been assured will not be the case if we buy the 2 unfinished ones in Ru.The balance 2 ,perhaps a few more,will be built in India.Looking at miscellaneous reports of project on hand,many have slipped becos of "funds shortage".The non-utilisation of funds earmarked for projects within the fin. year,sees these already approved funding returned to the FM,a ridiculous move,resulting in further babudom and delays of projects.I doubt that there are any more sadistic govt. beancounters anywhere in the world than in India.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1525
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 01 Feb 2018 16:53

Yeh to chalta rahega. I was shocked to see that Vishakapatnam looked as if it would be completed on time - my whole world was going damadol. It is comforting to know that it will not and all is as we are used to.

Take a chil pill Phil. Aaal is well.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2018 17:12

^^^That would be funny as hell, Akshay ji. If it were not so true.

The hull looks and is probably finished but our addiction to firangi components means we will never truly control our timelines.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61074
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 17:13

how come Cheen is able to roll out FFG/DDG hulls like dosas coming off a hot plate ? do they make their marine power plants whether on own or licensed from ukraine/russia? they slogged for 17 years but finally totally localized a ukraine power plant and now will be improving on it. I am sure they paid Ukraine handsomely given this long term plan, but have now taken control over its future path.....while we continue to meekly import from ukraine/GE and have no marine gas turbine of any proven std.

the mass build 052D hulls and 055 are having this one http://www.deagel.com/Propulsion-System ... 73001.aspx

Description: The Chinese QC280 is a high performance gas turbine developed and assembled by the China Shipbuilding Industry. The QC280 relates to the Ukranian GT-25000 gas turbine technology delivered to China in 1993 but with key components manufactured in Ukraine. In the early 2000s, China was able to get all the technology of the GT-25000 allowing it to manufacture all its components locally thus receiving the designation of UGT-25000. In the early 2010s, after solving a series of defects and shortfalls China re-designated this gas turbine as the QC-280. As of 2014 the QC280 is in production and is expected to be provided to large displacement ships such as the 12,000-ton class Type 055 destroyer and the new conventionally-powered Type 011 aircraft carrier.

Image

may not be as TFTA as GE LM2500 but gets the job done and has a lot of power at 97,000hp. on a 7500t DDG what is 5 extra tons of engine, its a paperweight. and the fuel consumption even if say 20% more still means plenty of hang time.
--
with Zorya lost, the russians have NPO saturn to work designing and building new marine gas turbines. they will get something functional soon.

we are left holding the bag as usual.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61074
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 17:20

question is what compelled us after using LM2500 on P17 and Vikrant earlier to continue to stick to Zorya for the P15A and P15B?

the bigger DDG51 class and many others like Sejong class use the 4*LM2500 for full on COGAG. some like hobart, type45 is 2 diesel 2 LM2500 for CODAG and so do we.

but anyway it proves that even 2 LM2500 is a drop in replacement for the Zoryas if we had chosen right.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2018 17:23

Singha wrote:how come Cheen is able to roll out FFG/DDG hulls like dosas coming off a hot plate ? do they make their marine power plants whether on own or licensed from ukraine/russia? they slogged for 17 years but finally totally localized a ukraine power plant and now will be improving on it. I am sure they paid Ukraine handsomely given this long term plan, but have now taken control over its future path.....while we continue to meekly import from ukraine/GE and have no marine gas turbine of any proven std.

the mass build 052D hulls and 055 are having this one http://www.deagel.com/Propulsion-System ... 73001.aspx

Description: The Chinese QC280 is a high performance gas turbine developed and assembled by the China Shipbuilding Industry. The QC280 relates to the Ukranian GT-25000 gas turbine technology delivered to China in 1993 but with key components manufactured in Ukraine. In the early 2000s, China was able to get all the technology of the GT-25000 allowing it to manufacture all its components locally thus receiving the designation of UGT-25000. In the early 2010s, after solving a series of defects and shortfalls China re-designated this gas turbine as the QC-280. As of 2014 the QC280 is in production and is expected to be provided to large displacement ships such as the 12,000-ton class Type 055 destroyer and the new conventionally-powered Type 011 aircraft carrier.

Image

may not be as TFTA as GE LM2500 but gets the job done and has a lot of power at 97,000hp. on a 7500t DDG what is 5 extra tons of engine, its a paperweight. and the fuel consumption even if say 20% more still means plenty of hang time.
--
with Zorya lost, the russians have NPO saturn to work designing and building new marine gas turbines. they will get something functional soon.

we are left holding the bag as usual.



Singha ji, it is the same thing I have spoken about time and again — negotiated ToT that really IS “transfer of technology.”

We negotiate for jobs and offsets on single variant, single production runs of high end stuff so our forces can get good firangi ware. The chini barter for control and ownership of often older designs so they can build and experiment to their heart’s content.

We are an users market. They are a builders market.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2018 17:36

Singha wrote:question is what compelled us after using LM2500 on P17 and Vikrant earlier to continue to stick to Zorya for the P15A and P15B?

the bigger DDG51 class and many others like Sejong class use the 4*LM2500 for full on COGAG. some like hobart, type45 is 2 diesel 2 LM2500 for CODAG and so do we.

but anyway it proves that even 2 LM2500 is a drop in replacement for the Zoryas if we had chosen right.


Because, my friend, the design for the Kolkatas started in the 1990s. Approval around 2000 and construction began in earnest circa 2003. Who knew that Ukraine and Russia would go to war then? The design of this class and the followon Vizags are already frozen. Re-designing for western engines? I’d say it would take another decade. IN taking chances with getting Ukraine back onboard than rather than redesign.

One of the benefits of very, very long timelines.

BTW, we’re paying $1BILLION US each for these Russian frigates with no engines. If worst comes to worst we can get the Russians to import some chini engines for those hulls. After all, the Russkies are using chinese turbines for their new Buyan corvettes.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby John » 01 Feb 2018 18:17

Karthik S wrote:
John wrote:Engine delays ( perhaps cause launch of last two vessels to be delayed) doesn’t explain the slow pace in which vessel is being fitted out. Looking at pics at least another 1-2 years left before trials and another year of trails so you are looking at 2021 before it’s inducted.


Yes 2021 is the new commissioning year coz of engine delay. Perhaps that's the reason they are going slow with fitment.


I don't buy that, though engine delay could have caused delays i doubt that is only reason for delay we have seen consistent delays fitting P-17,P-15A and P-28. Back when timelines' were announced i honestly doubted they could finished fitting it in 2 years especially for a lead ship.

chola wrote:
Because, my friend, the design for the Kolkatas started in the 1990s. Approval around 2000 and construction began in earnest circa 2003. Who knew that Ukraine and Russia would go to war then? The design of this class and the followon Vizags are already frozen. Re-designing for western engines? I’d say it would take another decade. IN taking chances with getting Ukraine back onboard than rather than redesign.

One of the benefits of very, very long timelines.

BTW, we’re paying $1BILLION US each for these Russian frigates with no engines. If worst comes to worst we can get the Russians to import some chini engines for those hulls. After all, the Russkies are using chinese turbines for their new Buyan corvettes.


P-15B were funded only in 2011 and design was finalized only a year or so later, in fact it was modified to accommodate the larger main gun and few notable changes were done to superstructure based on lessons learned from Kolkata. Plenty of time to change to LM2500 but we didn't because of additional complexity, political sensitivity and most notably GE turbines are much more expensive than Zorya. I did propose a stretched P-17 for next line DDG would be far superior to P-15B in terms of weapon payload (possibly 16 Brahmos with 64 Barak-8 (16-32-16 config) ) and enjoy lower radar footprint as well.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby SNaik » 01 Feb 2018 18:39

chola wrote:BTW, we’re paying $1BILLION US each for these Russian frigates with no engines. If worst comes to worst we can get the Russians to import some chini engines for those hulls. After all, the Russkies are using chinese turbines for their new Buyan corvettes.


Chinese diesels, not turbines. Actually SEMT/Pielstick just produced in China.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61074
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 19:23

Wow i learn something new everyday usually some dark tale not in msm

I guess we can assured now the p17a will have ge engines

Ukraine has no chance to get into EU already saddled with five of piigs nations. So no love and money there.

And a hostile russia has taken away the mineral rich heavy industry donetsk region in the east and can rattle the cage anytime. I dont see ukraine on upward path anytime soon.

Hope they can atleast supply spare parts for p15 p15a and p15b even cheen does not make that model

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6243
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 01 Feb 2018 19:28

Rakesh wrote:US Navy
1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense)
2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare)
1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates

This is a sample CBG of the French Navy...from the same link above...

1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Rubis Class submarine
2 anti-submarine destroyers
1 or 2 anti-air destroyers (Horizon or Cassard class)
1 stealth frigate in forward patrol
1 supply ship


Keep in mind that these are post SU collapse structures. When the going was tough, and a near peer adversary was equal or better in capability the Carrier Battle Group as it was then called could have 11 or more ships or submarines. I think at their largest they were in the range of 20.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3364
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 Feb 2018 19:33

I don't understand why we have not pressured Ukraine/Zoya to establish MII. They know how big the potential Indian market is.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61074
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 20:21

Zorya or ge or rr may not make all parts. Generally a collection of vendors supply these and some may have collapsed and vanished as it happened in 1991 ussr. The physical plant may be there but unpaid workers moved away. Antonov perhaps had a deep cache of parts and better finances to upg our an32 nicely. Marine gas turbine is a much lower volume business

Being a militia member offers better work in todays ukraine

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18327
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 01 Feb 2018 20:37

The IN must always have a Plan B ready as part of the approval procedure for key eqpt.esp.engines.Look how the lack of a suitable engine has limited the LCA' s performance, NLCA too.Should've gone the GE way.
Last edited by Philip on 01 Feb 2018 21:57, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61074
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 21:47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Bog ... _submarine <- this could have been us had we continued to build the U209 from late 80s onward as planned but I suspect Cheen/TSP combine and local moles in political woodwork took good care of that ... exploiting the faultline that bofors had set up earlier... massa was also not happy for us scuttling their trincomalee plans and IPKF ... pressure was being put to CRE and downsize us and sign on to CTBT meekly ....

The Chang Bogo-class submarine is a variant of the Type 209 diesel-electric attack submarine initially developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) of Germany, intended for service with the South Korean Navy and Indonesian Navy. A Daewoo (DSME)-upgraded model of the Chang Bogo class Type 209 is being independently exported by Korea to Indonesia in 2012, after a series of heavy competitions from Russian, French, and German-Turkish consortiums including from Germany's original Type 209 :oops: :shock: .[3] The variant is being considered for possible purchase by Thailand as well, as both newly built and second-hand options

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Vips » 01 Feb 2018 22:04

This export of Type 209 (upgraded) submarine by Korea to Indonesia in competition with the original 209 from Germany was discussed here last year.
Interestingly the engine and other aggregates for the South Korean submarine to be exported to Indonesia is still being supplied by Germany!!!!

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudeepj » 01 Feb 2018 23:24

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:US Navy
1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense)
2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare)
1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates

This is a sample CBG of the French Navy...from the same link above...

1 Aircraft Carrier
1 Rubis Class submarine
2 anti-submarine destroyers
1 or 2 anti-air destroyers (Horizon or Cassard class)
1 stealth frigate in forward patrol
1 supply ship


Keep in mind that these are post SU collapse structures. When the going was tough, and a near peer adversary was equal or better in capability the Carrier Battle Group as it was then called could have 11 or more ships or submarines. I think at their largest they were in the range of 20.


Yes, a CBG will be a mighty fleet of specialist ships each compensating for the others weakness in a way that makes it less vulnerable to any single enemy effort. There is no 'silver bullet' that can kill a CBG. The CBG is not uniquely vulnerable to a sub, in fact it may be the best option to concentrate forces while also protecting oneself against a DE submarine!

Even in the Khukri/Hangor battle in the Arabian sea, there were **two** frigates that were hunting the Hangor, a mini fleet if you will, and once the Hangor fired, the other frigate had to leave the battlefield without even picking up the survivors because it was uniquely vulnerable in that situation to the Hangor. In any future conflict, the navy is not going to send ships out i penny packets.. They are going to go in a fleet size of at least a few ships. How is this fleet not as vulnerable to the sub threat as the CBG? If anything, the CBG is much better protected because of the number of available ASW choppers it carries as well as the organic AEW doing surface search.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests