Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Jul 2017 11:24

Vips wrote:Indian Navy wants its only fighter aircraft to toughen up.

The Indian Navy's only fighter aircraft MiG-29K continues to face problems as the maritime force feels that the fighter jet needs to be further ruggedised for carrying out operations from aircraft carriers which is supposed to be its main role.

"The plane needs to be ruggedised further as very frequently after landings, the settings of the plane change and they have to be re-set," sources in the Navy told Mail Today.

What a piece of Kakkoose is this. This basically points to an untested and immature aircraft that was pawned off as the next best thing to sliced bread to the IN. Settings could mean multiple things including weight on wheel switches (the FCS has to cycle between two modes depending on the switch whether the plane is on the ground or airborne), who stuff like weapon sights and reticules and optics and radar could be knocked out and need to be re-sigthed. This plane ain't no Sea Dog , but a damned Landlubber.

"The MiG-29K, which is a carrier-borne multi-role aircraft and the mainstay of integral fleet air defence, is riddled with problems relating to airframe, RD MK-33 engine and fly-bywire system," the CAG said.

Basically everything except the pilot is "problematic" . The Tejas Mk2 carrier version, fully tested out and with AESA radar and the GE F414 would handily match and outperform this Mig -29 (Kakkoose). This will need a MLU in another 10 years anyways, and the first thing that gets tossed out will be the radar and the avionics. Why persist with this dawg.. Use it to the max for the next 5 to 7 years, get the LCA MK2 Naval Version in, and hand this thing over the the AF.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Jul 2017 11:44

Vina garu you are dumb, the problem is not with Kakoose, it is with indian pilots, technicians, indian water, indian runways, Vik runway, indian sea and indian oils used

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2017 12:41

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 623296.cms

INS Kalvari gears up to strengthen Navy power

TNN | Updated: Jul 17, 2017,
INS Kalvari gears up to strengthen Navy power
PUNE: INS Kalvari, the first of the six Scorpene-class submarines being built at Mazagon dock in Mumbai, is likely to be handed over to the Indian Navy next month.
"We are aiming to hand over the submarine to the Navy next month as all the trials have been conducted successfully. The date of the commissioning is yet to be finalised," Commodore Rakesh Anand (retd), chairman & managing director of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDSL), told TOI here.
He avoided getting into the specifics about the trial results. "The Navy has done an analysis of each trial and we can't comment on it," said Anand.
MDSL, a part of the defence ministry's department of defence production, has been building Scorpene-class submarines under project 75 with transfer of technology from French collaborator DCNS.
Recommended By Colombia
A senior MDSL official, who did not wish to be identified, said, "Naval authorities will confirm the date of the commissioning ceremony in the next few weeks. All crucial trials, including test-firings of torpedo, have achieved the desired results. Currently, testing of certain on-board systems is on at the dock and it will be over in the next few days. We are in the process of handing over the submarine to the Navy mostly in the second week of August."
Kalvari was supposed to be commissioned in the Navy in September 2016. The deadline was deferred following a delay in the sea trials, sources said.
Senior defence experts said it was the need of the hour to strengthen the Navy's underwater capabilities, particularly in the face of a growing presence of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean Region.
"China has about 60 submarines, including nuclear powered submarines, in their arsenal. It's a huge number vis-a-vis the Indian strength. We need to induct more submarines to counter future challenges. Post-induction, the Navy usually takes some time before a particular vessel is put to operational use. It is a time consuming process and hence we need to build submarines on time," a former vice-admiral said on condition of anonymity.

He never said a truer word! ...and of course we won't be told if she is carrying torpedoes.The test not too long ago of what may be a desi "fish",may indicate that she will be armed with that in the interim until the Black Shark deal is revived,which appears most likely.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Jul 2017 12:46

The time however appears to be too long,as it takes just 3 yrs. for a totally new "improved" 636.3 Kilo to be built.Refit/upgrade of subs should not take 2.25 years ,but finished around 18 months or so.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 623296.cms

HSL to complete refit of INS Sindhuvir in 27 months
Santosh Patnaik VISAKHAPATNAM, JULY 17, 2017 00:33 IST

INS Sindhuvir is one of the sophisticated vessels of the Indian Navy
The premier shipbuilding yard has expertise in undertaking submarine repairs

Hindustan Shipyard Limited, which kick-started the retrofitting of Russia-made INS Sindhuvir, one of the sophisticated EKM-class submarines of Indian Navy, will complete the ₹500 crore project in 27 months.

The country’s premier shipbuilding yard set up by Scindia Steam Navigation Ltd in 1941 in recognition of the strategic importance of the city was credited with successfully completing the retrofitting of INS Sindhukirti immediately after Cyclone Hudhud caused devastation in and around Visakhapatnam in 2014. HSL has submarine repair facility developed at a cost of ₹50 crore. It has expertise in submarine repairs with plans to construct next generation submarines in future.

The Ministry of Defence has accorded clearance to have tie-up with Hyundai Heavy Industries, the South Korean shipbuilding giant, for collaboration with HSL. A HSL official told The Hindu that after the arrival of INS Sindhuvir, a Sindhughosh-class diesel electric submarine, repair work had commenced.

HSL has also responded positively to the proposal mooted by the A.P. Economic Development Board for mutual cooperation with the United Shipbuilding Corporation of Russia. The Russian shipyard has evinced interest to place orders worth ₹20,000 crore to meet its own requirement. “The proposal will be placed before the Ministry of Defence for clearance,” A.P. Economic Development Board CEO J. Krishna Kishore told The Hindu.

Fleet support ships

HSL, which has been given a contract on nomination basis by the Ministry of Defence for construction of five fleet support ships, is planning to seek collaboration with Hyundai for executing contract for which modalities are being worked out. HSL, which was brought under Ministry of Defence on February 22, 2010 had earlier tried for bagging orders under the Project 75 (1) for construction of next generation submarines for Navy at a cost of $9.7 billion. However, there is not much progress on awarding the order to HSL and other shipyards who had submitted their offers.

After making a turnaround last year, HSL clocked turnover of ₹625 crore during 2016-17 with an operating profit of ₹15 crore after a gap of 35 years. HSL Chairman and Managing Director Rear Admiral L.V. Sarat Babu said they were confident of a bright future for the yard due to series of measures initiated to boost the morale of the workforce and improve the brand name of the yard.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 18 Jul 2017 14:24

Livefist‏Verified account @livefist
Spotted! India's 1st BMD ship shaping up at Vizag shipyard. Our report from January. https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01 ... essel.html … (Image cleared for release)

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2017 05:42

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Jul 2017 07:45

The Definitive Dogfight: F-18 vs Rafale M
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/887380689196208128

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Jul 2017 18:46

suryag wrote:Vina garu you are dumb, the problem is not with Kakoose, it is with indian pilots, technicians, indian water, indian runways, Vik runway, indian sea and indian oils used

What to do? Indian Navy is stuck with kakoose. uber lca is flying so high that it had no time to come down to where services can even see it. Poor IN has simply given up on latest, greatest, lightest, smallest and decided to fly kakoose because it has realized that LCA is too great for them to actually see it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2017 07:35

Navy unlikely to expand aircraft carrier fleet in next 15 years
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... rs/770553/

EMALS? F-18?

Askhay Saar, Hats Off To You! We definately need more subs, helos and other basic building blocks.

Earlier this year, Indian Navy’s Vice-Admiral D M Deshpande, controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, talking at Ficci’s international seminar on ‘Building India’s Future Navy: Technology Imperatives’, had indicated that the defence ministry remains uncertain about spending billions of dollars on a carrier. According to him, “an aircraft carrier is a huge ticket item and, before some commitments are made on allocation of these funds everybody wants to be very clear on the requirement, whether we actually need that. So these are being addressed before we actually take it up to the government for final clearances.”

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 20 Jul 2017 07:39

Good sense from concerned people. Now let's please focus on SSNs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Jul 2017 07:41

Well said Karthik S! Now the rhona-dhona will begin on BRF.

- Amazing how BRF does not see the value of F-18
- BRF Is so close minded
- Aligning with Amreeki makes strategic sense

Actually what makes sense is not breaking the bank by investing in a high ticket item such as a 65,000+ ton EMALS & nuke powered aircraft carrier, when other arms of the navy are suffering due to lack of resources, i.e. submarine arm and naval air arm.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2017 08:35

we can probably get 4 SSGN of aridaman type for the cost of a unique PA2 and its 60 * (rafale/f18 airwing + SH60).
the yard cost is already done, may not some expansion but nothing exceptional.

imagine what aridaman packing 30 HWTs/Klubs in TT and 8*3=24 brahmos in its VLS could do to merchant traffic

and maintain its stealth 100s of km away from target...

someone pass me the periscope and show me the red button that spells 'fire all tubes'

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 20 Jul 2017 08:39

A questionable decision at best if it has been decided to delay / scrap IAC 2. Don't quite believe it though. Questionable cause -

Puts paid to all capability at Cochin. Come 2025 when we plan to build the next one, people would have retired, gone away and we shall be on our way to acquire some oil tanker or heli carrier masquerading as a carrier. Redux of submarine building at MDL.
Vikramaditya spends more time in maintenance depot than surfing the waves. People shall wake up when friendly Chinese carrier lays claim to Andaman and starts dredging up Andaman sea to build Chindaman.
As it is IAC 2 would have taken 15 years to build, by which time Vikramaditya would be on last legs.

Muddled thinking at best. Don't think money is an issue. Enough going around for everyone.

Everyone else is building carriers, and we getting persuaded not to build one. Something else at play here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2017 08:44

I am all for building a slightly enlarged replica of the IAC-1. that will both preserve the yard, supplement the shaky future of the Vikky and is the logical thing to do. cost will be 3X less than a gold plated CVN.

clearly the rafale can do the ski ramp thing and the F18 should have no problem either but payload will be less than optimal thats all. for a *air defence* ship as per ADS, they will mostly be carrying 150kg class mica/amraam/derby * 6 and drop tanks.... mica is only 112kg....6 of these is only 700kg....light...6*160kg amraam is still under 1 ton.
4 x harpoon or exocet is around 1.5 tons max.

the khan 'N * strike carrier' concept is combative against the throw weight of the PLAN/PLAAF/PLANAF in west pacific due to
(a) support from land based tankers
(b) support of land based heavies like B2/B1 packing huge loads, MALD dropoffs
(c) support of networks of leading edge AAW DDGs
(d) support of SSGN thawk salvos from hordes of nuclear subs
(e) space based assets and VHF anti-stealth airborne radars
(f) F22s from japan to provide searing speed and ELO
(g) RC135 and EP3 for eorbat and jamming to support the growlers
(h) land based P3s in bulk for ASW

*most* of these vast assets are not part of the CBG. some are not even part of USN.

without this ecosystem a CVN just packing 90 JSF will be defeated against the kind of resources china can throw at the problem.

so lets get all the other pieces in place before going big.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2017 11:16

Rakesh wrote:Navy unlikely to expand aircraft carrier fleet in next 15 years
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... rs/770553/

Good Details there the IAC-1 is now 8 Years late

While IAC-2 has been put on hold as of now, IAC-1 is expected to be rolled out only by 2023. “The Indian Navy’s first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant is scheduled to roll out from the Cochin Shipyard by 2021-23, almost eight years late. This leaves the Navy with one operational aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, the 45,000-tonne carrier bought from Russia, which is due for repairs soon,” the source said.

Hopefully better sanity will prevail and IN cancel Global Tender to buy 120 twin engine 4.5 T Chopper and buy Naval Dhruv in large numbers ! If IN get adamant then MOD should enforce that !

Cancel the RFI/RFP nonsense for 57 Twin Engine Jet fighter , Invest that money in CG program for Coastal Survellence and build more Frigates locally buy half dozen more P-8I for that cost it is good value for money

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2017 12:12

Wise decision,what we've also been advocating ad nauseum on BRF. The billions saved can now be spent on extra subs,both N-subs and AIP subs,sub upgrades and the 120+ naval ASW helos.The Sikorsky helo acquisition has been cancelled due to v.high costs of the same.A similar reason why the US-2 amphib deal has also been stalled.

No problem for Cochin at all.It could be awarded 1-2 of the 4 30/35,000t amphibs to be built in India,and if the JUan Carlos class is selected,would be slightly smaller than the new Vikrant and could operate single-engined fighters like the NLCA/Sea Gripen/F-35 -if offered. There are also sev. larger vessels like auxiliaries,etc. which we've bought from Italy,etc. Cochin shipyard will not be idle once IAC-1 has been commissioned.

The VikA is only 3 yrs "eng". It is still in its infancy in its born-gain avatar as a reg. carrier. Whatever "repairs" it is due for will most likely be upgrading of its sensors,weapons fit like SAMs,etc.,plus any minor repairs/mods to its mechanical systems.There may be newer EW eqpt/commns.,esp. after Mr/M's visit to Israel,and the prospect of new more capable UAV/UCAVs being acquired or the IN. The most urgent priority is the rapidly depleting sub fleet both in numbers and capability.Hopefully by 2020 the 6 Scorpenes would've arrived in toto and the P-75I sub selected with work on that sub also to start.Then there is the requirement fo the 6 SSNs and completion of the first batch of Arihants/SSBNs.
There is also another req. for a small no. of mini-subs too. If we have MDL,HSL/VIzag and another pvt. player simultaneously manufacturing subs with full order books,we would be able to induct at least 2-3 subs every year,with at least one being a nuclear boat.In the interim,only leasing a few more Akulas/conventional boats from Russia will give us the most rapid stop-gap means by which the current crisis can be eased.China is downsizing its army and plans to fund and expand its navy even more so that it can dominate both Asia-Pacific and IOR waters and keep the Yanquis out.

With the money saved,we could use some of it upgrade our naval air stations/bases in he A&N islands and acquire more LRMP aircraft,even a few upgraded Backfires if poss.The 120+ ASW/MR helos could be finalised too.The 4 extra Talwars/Grigorivich frigates deal sealed also come also comes to mind.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jul 2017 22:06

SeaGuardian in sonobuoy tests

The SeaGuardian could have a future sonobuoy deployment capability with early stage tests confirmed as being carried out by manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI).

In January this year GA-ASI revealed new names for its Certifiable Predator B system, reflecting the role each platform was expected to undertake once in ...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2017 22:50

from jmsdf fbook page. high on badassery quotient
the japani kongos seem 1 deck taller(or their foredeck is 1 deck lower) than al-amriki burkes. widest among current ddgs with the type45.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Jul 2017 00:20

Philip wrote:No problem for Cochin at all.It could be awarded 1-2 of the 4 30/35,000t amphibs to be built in India,and if the JUan Carlos class is selected,would be slightly smaller than the new Vikrant and could operate single-engined fighters like the NLCA/Sea Gripen/F-35 -if offered.

No the Juan Carlos cannot operate a STOBAR fighter, regardless of its size, as I've explained to you earlier. I assumed by the lack of response that you had understood why. I'll reiterate, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

The JC class is not structurally designed for arrester gear, its flight deck does not cover the full length of the ship and, above all, it does NOT have an angled deck. Arrested recovery cannot be safely performed in the absence of an angled deck. An LHA/LHD like the Juan Carlos can ONLY operate a STOVL fighter type and rotorcraft. Period.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 21 Jul 2017 03:38

Philip wrote:Then there is the requirement fo the 6 SSNs and completion of the first batch of Arihants/SSBNs.
There is also another req. for a small no. of mini-subs too. If we have MDL,HSL/VIzag and another pvt. player simultaneously manufacturing subs with full order books,we would be able to induct at least 2-3 subs every year,with at least one being a nuclear boat.In the interim,only leasing a few more Akulas/conventional boats from Russia will give us the most rapid stop-gap means by which the current crisis can be eased.China is downsizing its army and plans to fund and expand its navy even more so that it can dominate both Asia-Pacific and IOR waters and keep the Yanquis out.

And the IN also needs 6 SSGNs with the Ohio Class specs:

General Characteristics, Ohio Class
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.
Propulsion: One nuclear reactor, one shaft.
Length: 560 feet (170.69 meters).
Beam: 42 feet (12.8 meters).
Displacement: 16,764 tons (17,033.03 metric tons) surfaced; 18,750 tons (19,000.1 metric tons) submerged.
Speed: 20+ knots (23+ miles per hour, 36.8+ kph).
Crew: 15 Officers, 144 Enlisted.
Armament: Up to 154 Tomahawk missiles, Mk48 torpedoes; 4 torpedo tubes.

Replace the 154 Tomahawks with 154 Nirbhay missiles with a range of 2500 kms and armed with either conventional or a 150 kt nuclear warhead and India's triad will be truly complete.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2017 11:38

Viv,I'v said earlier a modified deck resembling IAC-1 with an angled deck.In fact much earlier I threw out the thought that the IAC-1s deck design could be used for the amphibs.If the NLCA is pursued and arrives,it could be an option.The RN's QE class carriers which now have a straight runway/ski-jump on deck,were planned for cats earlier.Since the ships are in the region of 30-35K t,they could be so designed to operate light naval fighters as mentioned.

As it stands,F-35Bs could operate ,if they're offered one day and in the future,we may have something from the Yak bureau,see report.

Russia mulls developing vertical take-off fighter jets for new aircraft carrier
Military & Defense July 18, 19:09 UTC+3
"We are discussing this with our aircraft-building companies," Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said

ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), July 18. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Ministry is in talks with aircraft builders to develop an advanced vertical take-off and landing fighter jet for a future aircraft cruiser on the basis of planes produced by the Yakovlev Company, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday.
READ ALSO
Modernization of The Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier to begin September
"The Defense Ministry’s plans … somewhere at the finish of the state armament program for 2018-2025 envisage the commencement of the construction of a new aircraft cruiser and, of course, a new generation of aircraft will emerge by that time," Borisov said.
"Today, Su-33 and MiG-29 aircraft are the backbone of aircraft carriers, specifically, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Defense Ministry’s plans envisage developing an advanced short take-off and landing aircraft and, possibly, a vertical take-off and landing plane, and we are discussing this with our aircraft-building companies," he said at the MAKS-2017 international airshow outside Moscow.
"This is the development of the Yakovlev family of aircraft that was terminated. Such plans exist and we are discussing them, including the possible development of these areas for an advanced plane for aircraft carriers," he said.

http://tass.com/defense/956811

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Jul 2017 12:16

Philip wrote:Viv,I'v said earlier a modified deck resembling IAC-1 with an angled deck.In fact much earlier I threw out the thought that the IAC-1s deck design could be used for the amphibs.If the NLCA is pursued and arrives,it could be an option.The RN's QE class carriers which now have a straight runway/ski-jump on deck,were planned for cats earlier.Since the ships are in the region of 30-35K t,they could be so designed to operate light naval fighters as mentioned.

- The Juan Carlos does not have an angled deck. And no, you cannot 'modify' it with one without designing what amounts to a new ship.
- The QE class is not an LHD and it is not 30-35kt. Its flight deck is clean, wide and can accommodate an angled landing strip (at the cost of some inefficiency in deck parking spaces).

The N-LCA does not land vertically. It is designed for arrested recovery, like the Rafale-M and the MiG-29K. None of them is capable of operating from an LHD.

As it stands,F-35Bs could operate ,if they're offered one day and in the future,we may have something from the Yak bureau,see report.

'In the future', in this case, means no earlier than 2035 and most likely after 2040. (Development of any new clean sheet design takes a min. of 10 years usually preceded by a 5-10 year PD/tech dev. phase.) Unless you think that is an acceptable timeframe to equip the IN's LHDs with a fighter, the Yak option remains an empty fantasy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2017 12:33

Oz is building modified JC amphibs.There's nothing to prevent us from modifying the deck if we want to.SAAB had even offered us a few years ago a Sea Gripen variant for the much smaller Viraat,equipped with the angled deck + ski-jump. Lifts for Sea Kings can also accommodate a variety of naval strike aircraft too,pointed out earlier.The Q becomes more relevant now since we've shelved the large 65Kt CV and will have only two flat tops which can carry strike aircraft. 3-4 35K t "multi-role" amphibs with a ski-jump and angled deck would be most useful assets.

I would strongly suggest that L&T,whoever is the desi partner shortlisted,also offer this alternative in the light of the recent decision. It could even spur the unfinished development of the NLCA which would be a real feather in our cap if it arrives.A concerted effort to rectify the glitches should now be actively pursued. Such an achievement would also offer the IN complementary air assets to the 29Ks aboard the two carriers,as the 57 naval fighter req. will also stay on the shelf until the carrier file is reopened.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 21 Jul 2017 12:49

BTW why do WE need to deploy a STOVL bird on a LHD, since we have no expeditionary forces worth mentioning and definitely no strategy for the same?
For our needs, even if we do develop a sea based expeditionary outlook in the foreseeable future, we can use a navalized variant of Rudra and LCH for fire support with the 29k and, god willingly, the NLCA on OCA and BARCAP ops respectively for the expeditionary assets.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Jul 2017 13:43

^^ Dear Members - one humble request - kindly post what Russia, US, China, Australia, Botswana, etc are doing in either their respective threads or in International Naval thread.

You may also share your PoV why IN should follow examples set by those navies in those threads.

Let this thread contain news, information & discussion only on what IN is actually doing/planning.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jul 2017 21:13

Navy lacks institutional framework to deal with safety: CAG

The auditor said the loss of a ship and submarine adversely affects the operational preparedness of the Navy as acquisition of new ships and submarines takes more than eight to 10 years

Indian Navy's ships and submarines were involved in 38 accidents between 2007-08 and 2015-16, adversely affecting the operational preparedness of the force, the Comptroller and Auditor General said in a report today.

The auditor said the accidents were primarily attributable to fire, explosion and flooding, adding the Navy had no institutionalised framework to deal with safety since its inception.

The report, tabled in the Parliament, said a dedicated organisation for dealing with safety issues was setup by the Indian Navy in 2014. However, it awaits government's sanction.

The auditor said the loss of a ship and submarine adversely affects the operational preparedness of the Navy as acquisition of new ships and submarines takes more than eight to 10 years.

"It is, therefore, imperative that Navy maintains its assets free from accidents during peacetime evolutions.

"Between 2007-08 and 2015-16, Indian Navy ships and submarines were involved in 38 accidents, primarily attributable to fire, explosion, flooding," the CAG said.

The CAG also observed that the inventory control mechanism in the Navy was deficient and that laid down timeline for processing of indents was not adhered to leading to cascading effect in procurement of stores.

The also found that the Navy, while placing the order for procurement of four aero-engines for two helicopters damaged in an accident, did not take into consideration one helicopter which was declared 'Beyond Economical Repairs' before the conclusion of the contract.

It said the lapse in decision making process resulted in unproductive expenditure of Rs 16.62 crore on the procurement of three excess aero-engines.

The CAG also said that non-availability of the defence systems onboard the fleet tankers, since their delivery in 2011, rendered them vulnerable to external threats.

Further, non-linking of payment with the supply/installation of vital defence systems for two fleet tankers, resulted in premature payment of Rs 26.73 crore to the foreign vendor.

The CAG said the UH-3H fleet of helicopters, procured as an integral part of Landing Platform Deck, was unable to maintain the desired levels of serviceability in six out of seven years of its operations since commissioning.

It said non-existence of dedicated depot level maintenance facilities and non-availability of spares adversely impacted the maintenance of the fleet.

"Further, Navy continues to be dependent on the foreign repair agency for maintenance, servicing and logistics issues due to lack of training of Naval personnel," the CAG observed.

In another finding, the CAG said non-availability of a critical flight safety equipment on board the Indian Navy's and Coast Guard's aircraft, has impacted their safe operation for the past 12 years.

"The situation would persist for another four years due to asynchronous timelines for delivery of the equipment and its installation on board the aircraft.

"Further, failure to take cognisance of de-induction of one of the aircraft fleet, resulted in excess procurement of ten equipment worth Rs 5.58 crore," the CAG said.

titash · Post by **titash** » 21 Jul 2017 21:29

Navy unlikely to expand aircraft carrier fleet in next 15 years

While IAC-2 has been put on hold as of now, IAC-1 is expected to be rolled out only by 2023. “The Indian Navy’s first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant is scheduled to roll out from the Cochin Shipyard by 2021-23, almost eight years late. This leaves the Navy with one operational aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, the 45,000-tonne carrier bought from Russia, which is due for repairs soon,” the source said.

Something doesn't quite make sense...why would it take 6 more years to roll out a ship that's already structurally complete? What are the pieces missing? Can't be just outfitting because aside from cables and pipes, the equipment is already built outside the shipyard and just assembled. You don't say in 2015 that the ship will join in 2018, and then in 2017 say it will take 6 more years...doesn't add up.

1) Was equipment not ordered on time?
2) Did domestic or foreign suppliers delay equipment delivery?
3) Are CSL labor unions going slow on outfitting?
4) if the ship has 3000 compartments that need "outfitting" and you have 100 workers working on it, shouldn't you be able to linearly decrease the outfitting time by hiring contract labor for a project of national importance?

WTF?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Jul 2017 23:28

Philip wrote:Oz is building modified JC amphibs.There's nothing to prevent us from modifying the deck if we want to.

Oz is doing nothing of the sort. The RAN considered removing the ski-jump ramp but then dropped the idea for being excessively expensive.

You cannot 'modify' an LHD for an angled deck without redesigning the ship from ground up. Its not as simple as welding a few yards of corrugated steel over a cantilever.

3-4 35K t "multi-role" amphibs with a ski-jump and angled deck would be most useful assets.

LHDs capable of functioning in a carrier role would indeed be most useful assets. However, at 27,000 tons the Juan Carlos is the heaviest of the MRSV contenders with the others (Dokdo/Mistral) ranging in the 15,000-20,000 ton class. None of which are capable of STOBAR ops. There's nothing available in the 35,000 ton range - unless we want to build an upscaled version of the Cavour class carrier (which too is only designed for STOVL ops).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Jul 2017 23:42

tsarkar wrote:Let this thread contain news, information & discussion only on what IN is actually doing/planning.

The discussion is in the context of the IN's Multi Role Support Vessel program - currently being contested by Reliance/DCNS (Mistral) and L&T/Navantia (Juan Carlos).

Bala Vignesh wrote:BTW why do WE need to deploy a STOVL bird on a LHD, since we have no expeditionary forces worth mentioning and definitely no strategy for the same?
For our needs, even if we do develop a sea based expeditionary outlook in the foreseeable future, we can use a navalized variant of Rudra and LCH for fire support with the 29k and, god willingly, the NLCA on OCA and BARCAP ops respectively for the expeditionary assets.

That is precisely where the appeal of a STOVL bird lies. One way or the other, the IN's carriers will participate in any conventional conflict with Pakistan or China.

An LHD, in contrast, is useful only for amphibious assault (and, perhaps, as a helicopter carrier). If there is no imminent threat to any of India's island territories - it is an unlikely threat anyway - then in wartime the ship may as well earn its keep as a carrier.

And despite its smaller complement, a Juan Carlos/Anadolu-class ship (with a F-35B complement) will in many ways be a more effective package than the Vikrant & Vikramaditya (which will both operate only MiG-29Ks for the foreseeable future).

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Jul 2017 11:33

Viv sir,
I get the appeal of STOVL ops from LHD but my question is the need for it. With no expeditionary vision or capacity why should we look at the aspect at all, leaving the technical issues aside?? We would be needlessly complicating a project and costing us a whole lot more when we need more funds for other urgent operational bread butter requirements.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jul 2017 06:18

Bala Vignesh wrote:Viv sir,
I get the appeal of STOVL ops from LHD but my question is the need for it. With no expeditionary vision or capacity why should we look at the aspect at all, leaving the technical issues aside?? We would be needlessly complicating a project and costing us a whole lot more when we need more funds for other urgent operational bread butter requirements.

(Just Viv please)

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question. If you're asking why acquire an LHD for a dual amphib/carrier role, well.. the utility of a carrier is hardly restricted to an expeditionary role. A carrier's primary function is ensuring air defence for the naval group & with strike/anti-shipping being a secondary role. Both doable by an LHD/LHA with an appropriate air complement (Sea Harrier/AV-8B/F-35B).

If, on the other hand, you're questioning the need for an LHD in the first place... its a fair point. Sure an LHD is useful for HADR in peace-time and may be useful if ever we have to retake one of our island territories or support a friendly island state but expeditionary warfare is definitely not a priority.

That being said, the decision's been made to go ahead with it, so that's that. The silver-lining is that you could order the ships in a Juan Carlos derived class, pair it with a F-35B fleet, and the resulting package will be an invaluable complement to the IN's two existing carriers, one of which is of questionable vintage, and who's fighting potential is limited by the fact that they can only embark MiG-29Ks (unless, god-forbid, we end up with Super Hornets).

chola · Post by **chola** » 23 Jul 2017 08:23

If the story is correct and they are not expanding the carrier fleet in the next 15 goddam years then the next one have better be a CATOBAR if not a full fledge CVN.

The IN brass have said they will go to MoD as often as it takes to get the 65K ton CATOBAR. So hopefully things can change.

But if we do have to wait 15 years and we end up with just a Vikrant sister ship or another fvcking STOBAR, it will truly, truly suck the big one.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2017 09:17

Naval safety wing remains a pipe dream

CAG audit says many such recommendations of the inquiries into naval accidents have not been implemented

The Union government is yet to give formal sanction to a dedicated organisation for dealing with naval accidents despite a series of accidents involving submarines and ships and loss of several lives. An audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General also says a series of missteps led to the deadly 2013 accident in a submarine off Mumbai in which 18 people were killed.

“The Indian Navy, since inception, has no institutionalised framework to deal with safety issues. A dedicated organisation for dealing with safety issues was set up by the Indian Navy only in 2014; however, it awaits government’s sanction,” the CAG report tabled in Parliament on Friday said.

Submarine accident

The explosion aboard INS Sindhurakshak and its sinking off Mumbai in August 2013 resulted from a series of missteps, the audit says.

Quoting the Board of Inquiry proceedings into the sinking, the audit points out that the “operational deployment of the submarine in August 2013 by Indian Navy was not justified due” several reasons. Among them are the laid-down ships operating standards (SHOPS) for the submarine had not achieved the requisite harbour and operational evolutions; complete “work-up” of the submarine was not conducted when the submarine was prepared for operational deployment as the “work-up” was completed within one week instead of prescribed two weeks; the trials and calibration of navigational aids and sensors should be completed prior to deployment of a submarine for “work-up” with any consorts; however, in the case of INS Sindhurakshak, the sea acceptance trials of two pieces of critical equipment were not completed even at the time of its preparation for operational deployment; and submarine authorities concerned did not properly assess the crew fatigue, besides the submarine was holding ammunition nearing life expiry.

The audit found that many recommendations of the inquiries into naval accidents had not been implemented. This included installation of smoke and fire detectors in all compartments of submarines and procurement of extended line breathing apparatus (ELBA) sets, carbon composite submarine breathing apparatus (SBA), light weight breathing sets for submarines etc.

Safety organisation

The idea of creating an Indian Navy Safety Organisation was mooted first in 2006 and ultimately promulgated in October 2012, the audit says. “It was set up in February 2014, though it is yet to be sanctioned by Government,” the audit said.

From 2007-08 to 2015-16, a total number of 38 accidents occurred, which led to a loss of 33 lives of service officers and sailors.

The Navy lost two ships (INS Vindhyagiri and TRV A-72) and one submarine (INS Sindhurakshak) in these accidents. Of these accidents, the highest of 12 occurred during 2013-14, followed by six in 2007-08, five in 2014-15 and four each in 2008-09 and 2009-10.

The audit points out that out of 38 accidents, 15 (39%) occurred due to fire/explosion/flooding, six (16%) of vessels touching the bottom, another six (16%) were caused by collision of vessels and remaining 11 (29%) were of miscellaneous nature which included accidental stranding and suspended movements, venting of poisonous gas, damages to sonar while docking and damage to aircraft hangar onboard the vessel.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jul 2017 09:22

CAG slams Indian Navy for delay in anti-submarine warfare corvettes projects

http://www.firstpost.com/india/cag-slam ... 41617.html

New Delhi: The Comptroller and Auditor General has come down hard on the Indian Navy for causing inordinate delay in construction of four anti-submarine warfare corvettes.

In a report tabled in Parliament, the federal auditor said two of the four warships were delivered to the Navy were not fitted with required weapons and sensor systems due to which they could not perform to full potential as envisaged.

The CAG was severely critical of the Navy's Directorate of Naval Design (DND) for delay in finalising the design of the corvettes, saying approved designs were amended 24 times.

The Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (GRSE), a defence public sector undertaking (DPSU), was issued letter of intent for the project in 2003 but major modifications in design of the ships continued till 2008.

The first corvette was delivered to the Navy in July 2014 and second one in November 2015. According to the contract for the project, the third corvette should have been delivered in July 2014 and fourth in April 2015.

"Against the 18 weapons and sensors to be installed on ASW corvettes, audit observed that the two ASW corvettes delivered were not fitted with 'X' weapon and sensor systems. Thus, ASW corvettes could not perform to its full potential as envisaged," the CAG said.

The auditor also observed that Sea Acceptance Test (SAT) on six weapons and sensors in the first corvette and all weapons and sensors on the second one were pending satisfactory completion.

"Thus, the effectiveness of the main feature of anti-submarine warfare was yet to be fully proved."

(SAT) is conducted to test vessel's speed, equipment, manoeuvrability and safety features.

The CAG also expressed dissatisfaction over licence production and supply of Hawk Mk 132 AJT aircraft by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.It said not insisting for licence for manufacture of unlimited number of aircraft by the ministry of defence (MoD) while negotiating for "batch I" contract resulted in avoidable payment of licence fee for licenced manufacture of unlimited number of aircraft.

The CAG also said HAL incurred an expenditure of Rs 107.05 crore on account of procurement of six additional engine kits in anticipation of order from MoD which remained infructuous.

The HAL produces the plane under licence from BAE. under licence from the BAE Systems.

"Though establishment of facilities for major servicing of airframe and engines was envisaged to be completed by March 2016 and March 2018 respectively, considering aircraft directly procured by MoD, HAL was yet to establish the facilities till date," it said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2017 16:12

Multi-role amphibs for the IN ,with a fixed wing air complement ,would greatly enhance its all round capability,complementing the 2 med. sized carriers we have at the moment. It was quite some time ago that I advocated modifying the IAC-1's design (deck/hangar in particular) suitably into an amphib.If we had sufficient Harriers or the JSF available to us,these STOVL aircraft would be first choice along with a ski-jump. The Harrier isn't and JSF's not offered as of now. That's why the deck of the planned amphibs could have an angled deck and lifts large enough to accommodate Sea KIngs/NLCAs/Sea Gripens.etc.with an eye to the future. In fact if the size were the same size as the IAC-1,we could build just 3,which should be sufficient for our amphib warfare/MR needs.The vessel would then be able to operate 29Ks or any other aircraft that could operate from the first 2 flat tops. The current JC design with a ski-jump is limited to STOVL aircraft. If we do approve of something similar,then we will in the future have only 2 alternatives,the F-35B and the proposed new Ru STOVL/Yak fighter when it appears -quite some time away,which exists only on paper,a decision to be taken in the near future.That bird could perhaps only arrive around 2030,unless thew Yakovlev Bureau has ahd soemthing up its sleeve for a long time.

While we do not have the expeditionary role of say the US or Russia (with just one carrier),we do have the responsibility of protecting smaller nations like Mauritius,Seychelles,etc.,with whom we've established security agreements.Like the scotched coup in the Maldives in the late '80s,the extra flat tops with air defence,maritime strike and air support for amphib ops,would be invaluable.Their role flexibility avoiding the need for extra specialised vessels.Remember that the greatest threat is going to come from Sino-Paki subs in the coming years.

PS:The inquiry findings that the explosion on the SR was caused most likely by a torpedo rupture.old munitions,crew fatigue,etc.,and that recommendations have still not been accepted to is almost worse than the explosion itself.At the time of the incident there was one report from a witness of the accident,that while loading ,one of the missiles/torpedoes hit the side of the dock.The sub was preparing for an early morning patrol in haste.Crew error compounded with the rush to get out to sea,was possibly the culprit.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jul 2017 02:21

This is yet another abject securocracy/bureaucracy CAG point

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/624 ... copes.html

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Jul 2017 11:18

https://theprint.in/2017/07/21/oxygen-l ... ent-probe/

Oxygen leak in torpedo led to Sindhurakshak explosion, submarine was “not justified for deployment” — Probe

July 21, 2017

First time Navy Inquiry report made public; 17 personnel died in 2013 accident.

Manu Pubby

In the first official details of what went wrong on board the Indian submarine that exploded at the Mumbai port in 2013, it has been revealed that an oxygen leak from one of the torpedoes being loaded onto the vessel caused the accident.

The oxygen leak, according to the Navy inquiry that has now been made public by the central government auditor, took place due to a material failure in the torpedo. The accident on board the Kilo class INS Sindhurakshak in August 2013 killed 17 naval personnel – one of the biggest losses suffered by the Navy in peacetime.

Alarmingly, the CAG report has also quoted the Navy inquiry as saying that putting the Sindhurakshak back on deployment in August 2014 was not justified as it had not completed several trials and a “work up” that is required prior to going to sea.

“(Inquiry) Board, in February 2014 after scientific analysis and careful consideration, inferred leakage of oxygen from a torpedo as a primary initiator of the incident. The oxygen leak was attributed to material failure of oxygen flask or its associated pipelines,” said a CAG report on naval accidents that was submitted to Parliament on Friday.

In the past, the Defence ministry has acknowledged that mishandling of weapons may have caused the accident. However, the audit report points to a possible material failure in the torpedo as well. The detailed report says that there were several factors due to which the submarine was not justified for deployment.

“Complete ‘Work Up’ of the submarine was not conducted when the submarine was prepared for operational deployment as the ‘Work Up’ was completed within one week instead of prescribed two weeks,” the report says.

It adds that sea acceptance trials of two critical equipment had not been completed at deployment and that the authorities “did not properly assess the crew fatigue besides, the submarine was holding ammunition nearing life expiry”.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Jul 2017 13:27

<Snip> Wrong Thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jul 2017 14:29

The abysmal record of the UPA 1&2 towards national defence and security,is sadly too well known.The "Saint",one Anthony by name,sat motionless in his spotless white dhoti like the sphinx in the DM's chair,passing nothing apart from occasional visits to the loo,springing into action only when his party Queen beckoned her finger.His PM was as useful as a geriatric stable hand ,asleep on his watch,allowing all manner of horse trading,horse stealing and horse sh*t to be dumped upon the nation.

The IN in particular was very heavily hit by the "Saint's" apathy and dereliction of duty ,with shortages of sub batteries-leading to cannibalisation to keep some of them operational ,spares for all manner of subs,warships and aircraft,weaponry,etc. leading to numerous accidents and the resignation in acute distraught and disgust of the Navy chief,who fell on his sword instead of sticking it into the "Saint's" backside!

CAG reports from time to time merely record the failures galore,but where is the accountability subsequent? "A fish rots from the head" and it is fundamentally the poltitcal boss/bosses who are responsible.AS far as defence was concerned,Snake-Oil Singh was only concerned on the N-deal,a huge gift to the US,where huge defence deals were part of the deal now openly being admitted by the Yanquis themselves.The sad truth is that for the greater part of Independent India's governance,the ruling elites have been more engaged in feathering their nests,conspiring with vested interests within and without India,to amass massive qtys. of ill-gotten wealth at the expense of the poor and poor taxpayers of a Billion+++ people.

One wishes that our PM quickly resolves the issue of a new defence minister as Jet LI frankly cannot manage two of the most important and demanding portfolios of the cabinet without enormous stress. At this particular time,with China behaving like barbarians, the status quo must remain. However,a dynamic figure is needed,one with an acute scientific mind ,preferably with a good knowledge of defence affairs,history ,etc. At the very least the appointment of a Dy. DM to reduce the burden on the DM/FM ,being delegated with responsibility and sharing the burden. The Min. for Def. Prod. could also be roped in for greater responsibility.The reason for adding weight to the MOD politically,is to bring babudom to heel.The nexus between babudom and the badly performing DPSUs must end and accountability for success or failure to be swiftly delivered.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Jul 2017 15:20

Posting here because it is related to the Gorshkov.

So it seems that the PRC had a Kiev-class carrier cruiser for ages. In fact, two of them -- the Minsk and the Kiev itself.

The Russkies sold the Minsk to the PRC in 1995 and the Kiev in 1996. Both times as derelict museum pieces.

The PRC without doubt studied the Kiev-class but never attempted to convert them into something usable so they stayed as theme parks.

Instead they went subterfuge and got the Varyag in 1998 supposedly as a casino which became their first carrier.

The chinis, even with two Kiev-class vessels already in hand, decided that the design was a POS and left them as tourist attractions.

Of course in 2004, the Russians "gave" us the Gorshkov for $2.8B. And here we are.

Just think, we could have went after the Varyag when the chinis were aquiring the Kievs. It would have locked the PRC into an inferior design or maybe without the Varyag the PRC might never have launched a carrier program.

Hindsight is 20/20, I know. But still I wonder if we ever considered the Varyag and missed out on a strategic opportunity.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/society/ar ... ke-selfies

Chinese men break into ex-Soviet aircraft carrier to take selfies
Stunt involved men swimming 500 metres in the Yangtze River to get to the Minsk, according to news website
He HuifengHe Huifeng
UPDATED : Friday, 21 Jul 2017, 1:32PM[/size]

Eight men broke into a former Russian aircraft carrier after swimming in the Yangtze River because they wanted to take a look inside before it opens as a tourist attraction in eastern China, according to a news website report.

From wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-cl ... ft_carrier

A total of four Kiev-class carriers were built and commissioned, serving in the Soviet and then Russian Navy. The first two ships were sold to China as museums, and the third ship was scrapped. The fourth ship, Admiral Gorshkov, was sold to the Indian Navy in 2004, and after years of extensive modifications and refurbishment, is currently in active service as INS Vikramaditya.[2]