Indian Navy News & Discussion - 03 July 2018

kit · Post by **kit** » 14 Oct 2020 13:33

Is the INs indigenisation focus linked to the naval shipyard s remaining DPSUs .. interesting one nevertheless.. can someone with inside knowledge throw some light ?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 14 Oct 2020 19:41

A rare image of INS Talwar firing Kashtan missile

And some other weapons

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Oct 2020 03:40

Philip wrote:I'vd been saying for a long time,CG vessels must be designed
with naval requirements in mind. Equipped for but not fitted with armament reqd. during hostilities,which can be swiftly added when reqd. Tasks such as mine countermeasures, ASW, harbour/ base,brown water defence apart from regular maritime " policing" duties must be factored in. For OPVs,one std.size and hull design should be used with differing weaponry.

I have examined this question is in some detail. While swing-role OPVs and corvettes sound great on paper, it has not yet worked out in practice. USN's LCS is a good example. RN and RAN are currently in midst of OPV acquisition and this debate has been raging there as well.

In nutshell, optional equipment simply does not work due to the specialised training and practice required for different disciplines of naval warfare. From an effectiveness standpoint, you are better off by simply having different hull designs for different applications. In Indian context for example, shallow water ASW is best implemented on a bespoke design rather than trying it on a OPV hull. From a cost perspective a larger OPV with minimal armament is better than a heavily armed ASW patrol ship etc.

Having said all that, there is a need to rationalize naval fleets due to cost concerns. One area where there is somewhat of an overlap is hydrographic survey and MCM. for example, both require motherships which need to deploy smaller boats/AUVs with underwater sensors over a grid pattern. ASW-SWCs can also be charged with offshore patrol especially since they will be deployed in Arabian sea.

A post of mine regarding ICG role;

Aditya G wrote:
Philip wrote:....However,I would like to see the CG trained for more duties such as mine- countermeasures. CG ships could be fitted with clip- on MCM eqpt. to relieve the IN hov the task. Dedicated MCM vessels could also be acquired by the CG along with specialised UUVs for the same. Both the IN and CG operate OPVs,no reason why they cannot operate MCMVs too.
As is often the case in Indian defence matters, there is a lack of consensus as to what should be the role of the ICG in relation to the Navy. There is no provision in the CG act for wartime or military roles. Even for peacetime roles its the IN which is the lead agency (rightfully so imho) for coastal defence.

In current state, ICG is at best placed to offer following military roles:

- Combat Search and Rescue using water and air based platforms.
- Recce and surveillance of near shore areas
- Force protection in harbours and in coastal areas
- Support beach landings using hovercraft
- Defend against Pak Marines and SSGN in creek areas.
- Protect coastal targets (Trombay, offshore installations) against non-state actors
- VBSS against enemy shipping

Nowadays ASW and MCM are highly technical and specialised fields and requires year round training and practice. Clip on suites only give you flexibility of choosing platforms - so Navy can employ them on Water Jet FACs or any other vessel.

At best ICG could host a ASW or AEW chopper, assuming there are enough to go around.

Below is an excellent piece from US perspective:

https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/02/10 ... ard-roles/

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Oct 2020 03:55

One of the problematic questions in maritime security of India is "who is responsible" for coastal defence?

ICG has a lot of assets on the ground today, compared to 15 years ago. However these are all low-cost low-tech assets. If Pak Navy were to target India's offshore installations using submarines, there is nothing that ICG can do to stop it.

If PN deploys commandos or mujahids in creek areas or other coastal targets - then ICG could help - but are they training to fight a military foe? I have not seen one picture of ICG training in marsh areas of kutch though thankfully BSF has Floating BOPs, motor launches, FAC, Sisu Nasu tracked vehicles etc deployed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Oct 2020 04:02

The Q is v.valid given the high cost of CG assets and manpower. Rescuing fishermen, merchantmen in distress, seizing sneaky firang trawlers, smugglers,etc., are needed ,but in wartime,what will the CG do to come to the aid of the party?

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 18 Oct 2020 03:54

So small question, the below link says Karwara naval base. Is that a Sub I see there. I did not know subs are based there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@14.7683083 ... !1e3?hl=en

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 Oct 2020 06:03

Yep... and I believe there were plans for a tunneled submarine pen in the hills next to the base.

Just the above water part of that submarine is 200 ft long. Might be a kilo-class (no control planes on the conning tower), but I can't be sure

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 18 Oct 2020 21:49

yeah thats what i thought. So what surface combatants are berthed there.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2020 22:38

Guys, there is a reason why the navies of the world do not talk about their submarines. Wherever they are stationed, just let them be.

Move on from this please.

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 19 Oct 2020 00:28

Sorry, was just curious, but you are right.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 19 Oct 2020 14:32

Agreed, Rakesh saar... Hence I only shared OSINT info that's already been discussed on this forum before.

Moving on.

idan · Post by **idan** » 20 Oct 2020 04:09

Project 75I .... it is kind of sad that Saab (Blekinge class A26 Kockums) pulled out. Such a versatile platform.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 20 Oct 2020 04:12

Philip wrote:The Q is v.valid given the high cost of CG assets and manpower. Rescuing fishermen, merchantmen in distress, seizing sneaky firang trawlers, smugglers,etc., are needed ,but in wartime,what will the CG do to come to the aid of the party?

Sukanya class has a chopper deck. May be a Brahmos shore based TEL can be parked on the deck giving it a long range hitting capability. If the ship can be given some kind of long range target acquisition, (sat based sensor? drone based sensor?) this hare brained idea may even work!

Just two or three Sukanya class will be enough to bottle up the entire Pak navy in Karachi.

John · Post by **John** » 20 Oct 2020 04:32

sudeepj wrote:
Philip wrote:The Q is v.valid given the high cost of CG assets and manpower. Rescuing fishermen, merchantmen in distress, seizing sneaky firang trawlers, smugglers,etc., are needed ,but in wartime,what will the CG do to come to the aid of the party?
Sukanya class has a chopper deck. May be a Brahmos shore based TEL can be parked on the deck giving it a long range hitting capability. If the ship can be given some kind of long range target acquisition, (sat based sensor? drone based sensor?) this hare brained idea may even work!

Just two or three Sukanya class will be enough to bottle up the entire Pak navy in Karachi.

It is one thing to fire prithvi missile it is whole another parking a TEL which is much bigger than the landing pad and it weights upwards of 20+ tons.

Much cheaper to crank out some tarantula class missile boats which can carry 4-8 Brahmos in inclined launchers.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Oct 2020 08:48

Why need boats to fire upon Karachi. I am sure we can do it from the land-based launcher in Bharat.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Oct 2020 21:42

It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

I think it is possible if the system is recoilless and has guidance to mitigate lack of stability of the ship.

For example Egypt has placed Stinger launchers on Mistrals:

The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is fired from the flight deck of San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Anchorage (LPD 23) on Oct. 22, 2017, during Dawn Blitz 2017. (MC2 Matthew Dickinson)

Such a capability could transform ICG platforms into useful force multipliers.

John wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
Sukanya class has a chopper deck. May be a Brahmos shore based TEL can be parked on the deck giving it a long range hitting capability. If the ship can be given some kind of long range target acquisition, (sat based sensor? drone based sensor?) this hare brained idea may even work!

Just two or three Sukanya class will be enough to bottle up the entire Pak navy in Karachi.
It is one thing to fire prithvi missile it is whole another parking a TEL which is much bigger than the landing pad and it weights upwards of 20+ tons.

Much cheaper to crank out some tarantula class missile boats which can carry 4-8 Brahmos in inclined launchers.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Oct 2020 21:52

Another one.

In September, Marines with the 31st Marine Expeditionary, or MEU, embarked aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp parked LAVs on the flight deck for a ship defense drill in the South China Sea that was designed to mimic the MEU’s voyage through dangerous waters.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Oct 2020 22:06

idan wrote:Project 75I .... it is kind of sad that Saab (Blekinge class A26 Kockums) pulled out. Such a versatile platform.

All OEMs will look out only for their interests. It appears that Saab felt that it was not financially feasible to invest the money into the competition, only to lose to more established players in the contest i.e. Naval Group, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and the Rubin Design Bureau. All those three firms have submarines operating in the Indian Navy and thus a big advantage lies in their court. Saab will have to prove that their boat (in which not a single one exists) can exceed the capabilities of their competitors - in the contest - for a significantly cheaper price.

I am sure Saab crunched those numbers and realized that they are coming up short. They then made the decision to pull out. Better to do that, than to spend the next decade waiting in a twilight zone for our MoD Babus and politicians to get their act together and make a decision.

My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Oct 2020 22:15

Aditya G wrote:It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

I think it is possible if the system is recoilless and has guidance to mitigate lack of stability of the ship.

The Russians have developed containerised roll on roll up facilities for missile launchers ..could be an interesting option..in addition to stealth

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Oct 2020 22:35

Rakesh wrote:My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.

Is it possible to get a Kilo line in India? We have so much experience with the submarine! I bet that China is going to come up with a AIP-Kilo in the near future...

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Oct 2020 22:42

And I still dont understand why we cant use and improve on our Type 209 ToT

John · Post by **John** » 20 Oct 2020 22:43

Aditya G wrote:It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

I think it is possible if the system is recoilless and has guidance to mitigate lack of stability of the ship.

Yes on a LHD not from a hanger deck of any of our vessels.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Oct 2020 22:53

V_Raman wrote:
Rakesh wrote:My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.
Is it possible to get a Kilo line in India? We have so much experience with the submarine! I bet that China is going to come up with a AIP-Kilo in the near future...

Why not an Indian line?

The Indian Naval Design Bureau is working on a six SSN program. That same design bureau worked on the Arihant Class SSBN program, with a follow on S5 Class of SSBN. Scorpene design is there. Indian shipyards have also refit Kilo Class and HDW 209 boats as well. So submarine design and refit is not something that is new to India.

Lessons learnt from above can be incorporated into a future SSK program for the IN. This is not unsurmountable for the Indian Naval Design Bureau to do. Give the contract for the Type 636.3 boat to the Rubin Design Bureau. They are churning out those boats like idlis. The quicker submarine acquisitions can take place, the better. The greater urgency lies in reviving the submarine fleet, not in submarine design.

If Naval Group of France can design an ocean-going SSK (Shortfin Barracuda) from the Suffren Class SSN program, what is stopping the Indian Naval Design Bureau from doing the same?

V_Raman wrote:And I still dont understand why we cant use and improve on our Type 209 ToT

Good Point

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 20 Oct 2020 23:05

wannabe navies in the world are making HDW subs - why not India ?!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Oct 2020 00:12

Aditya G wrote:It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

They sure can. But employing heavy, and bulky offensive systems would pose a challenge. For one, you would have to do some sort of trade between having that capability and an aviation capability. Secondly, distributing offensive power on surface vessels works more credibly when you have defenses onboard. Otherwise all you've done is just increase the value (to the enemy) of your ship and made him commit more offensive resources to mitigating that. Since the trade off between bomber sorties, AShMs, and naval strike fighters is still favorable compared to surface ships you are probably better off with a balance b/w offensive and defensive for the concept of operation to work. It works fine if there is a mismatch between powers but if the other side can also field subsonic and supersonic weapons (like China) then you've just made a vessel with a RO/RO containerized offensive capability a more pressing target and therefore limit how the asset is going to be employed (dependent upon its organic self-defense capability or the overall area defense capability vs a given threat).

idan · Post by **idan** » 21 Oct 2020 00:27

Rakesh wrote:
idan wrote:Project 75I .... it is kind of sad that Saab (Blekinge class A26 Kockums) pulled out. Such a versatile platform.
All OEMs will look out only for their interests. It appears that Saab felt that it was not financially feasible to invest the money into the competition, only to lose to more established players in the contest i.e. Naval Group, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and the Rubin Design Bureau. All those three firms have submarines operating in the Indian Navy and thus a big advantage lies in their court. Saab will have to prove that their boat (in which not a single one exists) can exceed the capabilities of their competitors - in the contest - for a significantly cheaper price.

I am sure Saab crunched those numbers and realized that they are coming up short. They then made the decision to pull out. Better to do that, than to spend the next decade waiting in a twilight zone for our MoD Babus and politicians to get their act together and make a decision.

My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.

Kockums have been in the submarine business for years and structurally A26 class are modular, building on their experience of previous Gotland class. What is important is the super silent Kockums AIP Stirling engine. The same Stirling AIP engine is a very proven one and powers all the Soryu class submarines for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces. The Kockums V4-275R Stirling engines are license-built by Kawasakis. They provide a total power output of 2900 kilowatts surfaced and 6000 kilowatts submerged and are known to be the quietest and vibration-free external combustion engines. The Kockums Stirling AIP burns pure oxygen and diesel fuel in a pressurized combustion chamber. The combustion pressure is higher that the surrounding sea water pressure, thereby allowing the exhaust products, dissolved in seawater, to be discharged overboard without using a compressor. Oxygen is stored in liquid form (LOX) in cryogenic tanks. China's type 041 Yuan class AIP is also based on Kockums Stirling AIP Mk 4.

Saab had invested a lot of money for promoting Gripen in India and realised that mere tech marvel does not charm our MoD babudom so they wisely pulled out IMHO. Like you rightly said there are other factors - existing fleet, infrastructure etc. plays a major role in decision making. Having said that I have often wondered why MoD was interested in Soryu class boats!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 21 Oct 2020 02:09

brar_w wrote:
Aditya G wrote:It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?

It is an interesting proposition - can mobile military systems be wheeled on to a ship?
They sure can. But employing heavy, and bulky offensive systems would pose a challenge. For one, you would have to do some sort of trade between having that capability and an aviation capability. Secondly, distributing offensive power on surface vessels works more credibly when you have defenses onboard. Otherwise all you've done is just increase the value (to the enemy) of your ship and made him commit more offensive resources to mitigating that. Since the trade off between bomber sorties, AShMs, and naval strike fighters is still favorable compared to surface ships you are probably better off with a balance b/w offensive and defensive for the concept of operation to work. It works fine if there is a mismatch between powers but if the other side can also field subsonic and supersonic weapons (like China) then you've just made a vessel with a RO/RO containerized offensive capability a more pressing target and therefore limit how the asset is going to be employed (dependent upon its organic self-defense capability or the overall area defense capability vs a given threat).

The successor to the Sukanya class, the Saryu class, has a 76mm OTO MELARA SRGM and twin AK630 30mm Gatling guns. On paper, they should be able to take on any exocet or harpoon type weapons. Ramjet missiles is another story. Yes, there is a tradeoff in not being able to launch the chopper, but this class of ship does not have torpedos to prosecute underwater threats. Unless you are launching a SeaKing class, the chopper is more for surveillance than for extending the offensive reach of the ship. If you can provide this ship with long range missiles such as Brahmos, or the recently launched SMART anti sub missile and a long range, persistent sensor (say MQ9), its capable of being a very credible threat to any surface vessel.

The beam is 12 meters wide, so it should be able to accommodate at least two and possibly even three 40 foot container sized trucks/modules.

Say, we forward deploy these 3-400kms from Mumbai, Vizag or Andamans. Drones provide long range surveillance, while truck based roll on platforms provide the long range shooting capability. If your drone (or satellite?) detects a type 55 first, and survives long enough to cue the weapons on the Saryu, with the kind of missiles the little ship can unleash, the type 55 is surely a goner.

To be sure, purpose built ships will be far more capable. But this is a way to provide serious offensive and defensive capability against the enemy, using assets that are relatively toothless, farther away from own shore.

John · Post by **John** » 21 Oct 2020 03:20

sudeepj wrote:The successor to the Sukanya class, the Saryu class, has a 76mm OTO MELARA SRGM and twin AK630 30mm Gatling guns. On paper, they should be able to take on any exocet or harpoon type weapons.

No they cannot engage Ashm they intended primarily to engage surface targets thru EO, they don’t have air search radar or STGR. These don’t have surface search radar or Fire control radar for Brahmos Target designation either, so I still don’t understand what we are trying to achieve.

If you really want cargo container based missile launch system it is best to put these on cargo ships which is what Russian solution is designed for.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 21 Oct 2020 03:24

If Japan and China can license build the Kockum engine - we cannot ?!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 21 Oct 2020 03:25

sudeepj wrote:The successor to the Sukanya class, the Saryu class, has a 76mm OTO MELARA SRGM and twin AK630 30mm Gatling guns. On paper, they should be able to take on any exocet or harpoon type weapons..

Easier said then done. Subsonic missiles don't fly solo. By virtue of their smaller size, and lighter weight, they can be launched in larger numbers, fly low altitudes and fly different trajectories. Fighters can carry more of them per sortie (F-35 can carry 6 JSM's, the F/A-18, 4), and bombers even more. That's their advantage i.e. low signature (RF and IR) and size/weight allowing for larger magazines. Some are also passive. China has subsonic, and supersonic missiles of Chinese and Russian origin. They also recently starting flying a hypersonic missile on one of their bombers.

The problem isn't that a vessel won't use its guns to try to shoot down whatever is launched at it (be it subsonic, supersonic, or hypersonic). The problem is that the moment you put large offensive systems on it you've just made it into a high value target. Or increased the resources your enemy is going to dedicate to neutralizing it. One of the job of a naval force, and sea based and air-power (strike and ISR complex) supporting a naval force (like bombers and strike fighters equipped with AshMs) is to seek out things that can kill ships and hunt them down. Therefore a good distributed offensive strategy, particularly one relying on large offensive weapons (also expensive) has to have the defenses to overcome any offensive power the enemy will throw at it.

sudeepj wrote: If your drone (or satellite?) detects a type 55 first, and survives long enough to cue the weapons on the Saryu, with the kind of missiles the little ship can unleash, the type 55 is surely a goner.

If the Chinese don't have any ISR, C-ISR, or strike capability of their own, or part of their combined force then this will work just as you envisioned and the T-55 will be a goner. The size of their naval build up, aerial support, and the fact that the T-55 has 112 vertical cells, each larger than USN's MK41's should give some hint that they likely won't be foolish enough to unleash a multi billion dollar destroyer out in the open without all of those capabilities referenced earlier.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Oct 2020 04:35

idan wrote:Kockums have been in the submarine business for years and structurally A26 class are modular, building on their experience of previous Gotland class.

And Naval Group, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems and the Rubin Design Bureau have all been in the same business for the same length of time.

idan wrote:What is important is the super silent Kockums AIP Stirling engine. The same Stirling AIP engine is a very proven one and powers all the Soryu class submarines for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces. The Kockums V4-275R Stirling engines are license-built by Kawasakis. They provide a total power output of 2900 kilowatts surfaced and 6000 kilowatts submerged and are known to be the quietest and vibration-free external combustion engines. The Kockums Stirling AIP burns pure oxygen and diesel fuel in a pressurized combustion chamber. The combustion pressure is higher that the surrounding sea water pressure, thereby allowing the exhaust products, dissolved in seawater, to be discharged overboard without using a compressor. Oxygen is stored in liquid form (LOX) in cryogenic tanks. China's type 041 Yuan class AIP is also based on Kockums Stirling AIP Mk 4.

With the DRDO AIP in development...perhaps Saab does not see a viable path for the Stirling AIP to enter service (with the Indian Navy) on a Swedish-origin submarine such as the Blekinge Class (A26) submarine. In fact, the IN rejected Naval Group's MESMA AIP system partly for that reason. The fact that the Pak Navy also operates that same exact AIP platform, has played a prominent role as well. The six Kalvari Class boats will be fitted with the DRDO AIP system during their mid life refits. The Stirling AIP is a proven platform and the DRDO AIP system is not. Perhaps Saab does not want to take the risk of integrating a foreign AIP system on an A26 boat designed from the get-go with the Stirling AIP. Saab's reasons for pulling out could be many. Lots of speculation.

idan wrote:Saab had invested a lot of money for promoting Gripen in India and realised that mere tech marvel does not charm our MoD babudom so they wisely pulled out IMHO.

Unless I missed the news on that, I believe that Saab is participating in the MRFA contest and just recently has switched her local partner from Adani to HAL. Saab not winning the MRFA contest will be more due to the other contestants being more effective than the Gripen E or from Dassault's perspective - you already operate the Rafale, what is the need for another type that complements the Rafale? I do not want to derail this thread, on MMRCA discussion. So feel free to respond in the MMRCA thread if you wish ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&start=2200

idan wrote:Like you rightly said there are other factors - existing fleet, infrastructure etc. plays a major role in decision making. Having said that I have often wondered why MoD was interested in Soryu class boats!

The interest in the Soryu Class came primarily from then Raksha Mantri Manohar Parrikar and he requested Japan to participate. Japan wisely turned that offer down. I pity the Japanese who would have to deal with the MoD. It will be a nightmare for them. However, the babus at the MoD is not aware (and neither do they care) of the technical aspects of the platform. The Japanese chose not to participate in the P75I contest, as per this article below...

Japan Unlikely To Join Indian Sub Tender
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/ ... ub-tender/
11 April 2015

"There are three reasons that make Japanese reluctance understandable," Patalano said. "The first is operational. The Soryu's design is maximized to favor longer patrols and operational flexibility [hence the larger size], both features being not particularly relevant to India's requirements. The second concerns the limited commercial advantage of this deal. Indian shipbuilding industry has limited capacity and a track record that is less than stellar. ... The third aspect concerns reputation. Japan is still learning its ropes in defense-related cooperation/sales, and an Indian experience might be problematic. If you're the new kid in town, you don't want your reputation to be tarnished before you have established it."

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 21 Oct 2020 04:39

corruption or not sweden gave us a full faith gun ToT with bofors - so they can be trusted.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Oct 2020 04:40

V_Raman wrote:If Japan and China can license build the Kockum engine - we cannot ?!

Since you have not visited the righteous babus who work at North Block, you are forgiven for making that statement.

Just once in your life, just once sir, do visit if you are able. Let me know how that works out for you.

V_Raman wrote:corruption or not sweden gave us a full faith gun ToT with bofors - so they can be trusted.

They have to participate in the P75I contest and since they have now pulled out, that is a moot point.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Oct 2020 10:36

Rakesh wrote:My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.

I thought the tender specified really large boats. perhaps 636 will be big enough but I think, it would have to be Soryu or the DCNS SMX-Ocean platform

RajaRudra · Post by **RajaRudra** » 21 Oct 2020 14:30

http://mizzima.com/article/india-give-submarine-myanmar

What could be the reason?
To put Bangladesh on notice regarding China ties?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Oct 2020 20:32

Good progress in our ship design & building capability.

Designed by Directorate of Naval design, 90% indigenization achieved, a good package of weapons & sensors for her designed role, 5 years from keel laying to commissioning.

Great effort by GRSE indeed!

INS Kavaratti, last of 4 indigenous Anti-Submarine Warfare corvettes under Project-28 to be commissioned into @indiannavy tomorrow in Vishakhapatnam.

Will be joining Navy as a combat-ready platform having completed sea trials of all the systems fitted onboard

@the_hindu

titash · Post by **titash** » 21 Oct 2020 20:39

chetak wrote:Good progress in our ship design & building capability.

Designed by Directorate of Naval design, 90% indigenization achieved, a good package of weapons & sensors for her designed role, 5 years from keel laying to commissioning.

Great effort by GRSE indeed!

INS Kavaratti, last of 4 indigenous Anti-Submarine Warfare corvettes under Project-28 to be commissioned into @indiannavy tomorrow in Vishakhapatnam.

Will be joining Navy as a combat-ready platform having completed sea trials of all the systems fitted onboard .

Launched 5 years ago. Spent 5 years fitting out. Was lais down 8 years ago. Still quite a ways to go.

In all fairness, once all shipborne equipment, weapons, and sensors are local, and build volume is achieved in future projects i.e. 20 frigate production run etc... then we'll see them being churned out like sausages. We've come a long way since we constructed the six 2000 ton Leander class over 15 years from 1967 thru 1982

idan · Post by **idan** » 21 Oct 2020 20:52

Soryu class is very interesting as it evolves with a more efficient snorkel system. The latest Soryu boat has got rid of Stirling AIP and embraced Li-ion batteries making it even more silent. That should free up section 9 & 10 in the cutaway diagram.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2020 22:19

The P-28s are underamed for their size and cost.The RIBs/ launch could easily be relocated on either side of the funnel creating a large space for 2X4 launchers for BMos/ SMART whatever.However, even an improved P-28 design is still an expensive vessel. Our venerable Khukri/ Kora corvettes of around 1250t have sailed all over Asia in the company of larger FFGs/ DDGs.

A 1750-2000t corvette can be designed ,with a primary ASW task, with an integral ASW helo of NH-90/ KA-28 size. TTs,either heavy weight or LWT ,plus a hard-kill anti- torpedo system like Paket. 8 anti-ship missiles,16 SAMs ,an MBU, main gun plus 2X30 mm gatlings ,even an SAN-4 MANPADS system thrown in.The Abhay/ Pauk class of only 450t could carry a main gun,MBUs, TTs,VDS,etc.

Coming back to CG assets, one would prefer to limit the wartime tasks to MCM and coastal ASW, protecting our ports and bases from enemy UW assets including UUVs. Coastal batteries of LR anti-ship missiles are a better alternative. If at all CG vessels need to also have an SSM option, we can take a leaf out of the Iranian navy's manual, where tiny bumboats have been fitted with smaller SSMs. Granted in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf these bumboats make sense, but in the IN's content with the entire IOR+ to think about, larger vessels with more endurance are the need, both heavyweight corvettes and smaller craft,apart from frigates+.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Oct 2020 22:40

Cain Marko wrote:
Rakesh wrote:My personal choice would 2 - 3 Scorpenes and six Type 636.3 boats (due to the speed of acquisition), but the Navy knows best.
I thought the tender specified really large boats. perhaps 636 will be big enough but I think, it would have to be Soryu or the DCNS SMX-Ocean platform

Please click on link below to see the picture. The picture at bottom left is out, as Saab has opted out of the contest. Neither is the Soryu or the SMX-Ocean competing in the contest.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/109 ... 58529?s=20 ---> These are the 4 submarine types that have officially thrown their hat in the ring to compete in India’s Project 75I submarine build program. Long road ahead.

* Type 214 has a surface displacement of 1,690 tons
* Amur 1650 has a surface displacement of 1,650 tons. A larger variant exists on paper and has a surface depth of 1,850 tons.
* Scorpene Class in service with the Indian Navy has a surface displacement of 1,615 tons. Naval Group is an offering an improved Scorpene design, which will have a larger surface displacement, but will not be in the league of the Soryu Class or SMX-Ocean.
* Soryu Class has a surface displacement of 2,800 - 2,900 tons and her successor (the Taigei Class) will have a surface displacement of 3,000+ tons.
* SMX-Ocean has a surface displacement of 4,700 tons and her relative, the Shortfin Barracuda (will be known as Attack Class in the Royal Australian Navy) has a surface displacement of 4,500 tons.

As I mentioned earlier, the greater urgency is reviving the submarine fleet. There are 8(+1) Kilos in service and four HDW 209s in service. That is a fleet of 12(+1) boats. We are only in RFI stage of Project 75I. At the snail's pace this project is moving...not a single vessel will join the IN before 2030. The oldest Kilo boat will be 44 years old in 2030 and the youngest will be 30 years of age. The oldest HDW 209 will be 44 years old in 2030 and the youngest will be 39 years old. How much of this fleet will actually be sea worthy and battle worthy in 2030 remains to be seen.

So when the next decade rolls up, the SSK submarine fleet will be at six Scorpene (Kalvari) Class boats. That's it. The IN has a projected SSK fleet strength of 18 boats (bare minimum). So by 2030, the strength will be 12 short. Assuming one or two of the Kilo boats will still be service in 2030, there is still a shortfall of around 10 - 11 boats. Out of this meagre fleet of 6 - 8 boats, not all will be at sea at any given time. That works in the world of utopia and la-la land, but not in reality. A few will be in refit, a few will be in maintenance and probably 2 - 3 will be available. The situation is dire.

Now since the Scorpene line is still active, acquiring another 2 boats is not a back breaking task to accomplish. Same is true with giving the Rubin Design Bureau an order for six Type 636.3 boats. All eight boats will be in service before 2030. So when the next decade rolls up, the IN submarine fleet could be at eight Scorpene (Kalvari) Class boats and six Type 636.3 boats. That is a total fleet strength of 14 boats, of which significantly more than 2 - 3 will be available for duties.

Lessons learnt from Scorpene Class and from the Arihant Class (also from the six SSN program and from the S5 SSBN program) could result in a 6 + 6 SSK build program. Similar in scope to the Soryu Class or the even bigger Shortfin Barracuda Class with around 4,000+ ton surface displacement, VLS BrahMos cell, DRDO AIP system, Varunastra torpedoes, updated USHUS sonar, etc. So towards the end of the 2020s, award MDL a contract for six of these SSKs with a follow-on order of another six (improved variant). Why waste upwards of $10 billion on Project 75I (in which not a single boat will come before 2030), when you can get 2 more Scorpene boats and six Kilo Class boats for $3± billion? Even at $5 billion, it is a steal and with all eight in service before 2030.

And someone please tell the MoD to sign a damn contract for modern torpedoes for the Scorpene (Kalvari) Class boats. Get the F21 torpedo from Naval Group. Holding a contest for six new boats, but no torpedoes for the boats being inducted now. Where are the MoD's priorities? Rhetorical question Saar, I already know the answer! Garam Chai and Bonda at 4 pm sharp and then belch at 4:07 p.m.