Indian Naval Discussion

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 30 Jan 2011 21:53

Vivek K wrote:What is wrong with the navy? If naval vessels cannot avoid merchant ships, how do they expect to avoid the enemy?

Do you know the facts and circs of the case, that you are commenting so freely? Do you know for a fact that the collision was caused due to the Naval vessels default? Are you well versed with what Mumbai Harbour is like, the topography, the congestion, and the general layout?

The law of the sea (and general conditions of seafaring) place equal responsibility on all parties to maintain adequate alertness to avert incidents, and equal liability. There is no disproportionate liability on naval vessels, although navies are generally VERY strict about such things. The IN Captains career is likely finished, which is unfortunate.

Finally, what does "avoid the enemy" even mean? Are you under the impression that naval battles are fought like an extended nautical version of dodge 'em cars?

I would suggest that we Wait for the details of the incident to come out, before making such sweeping comments about the entire Navy.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2011 22:03

Deans, mumbai harbour is incredibly crowded and the navy has been asking for funds to shift its base to karwar since the last millenium. the CO will in all likelihood face court martial and take premature retirement, whether it's his fault or not. we are in no position to judge, for all we know the merchant vessel came and rammed him in a narrow stretch of water. let's wait for more info.

p.s. ASP sahab, I'm sure you know this but once upon a time naval battles did constitute of ships ramming each other, some 2000 years back.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 30 Jan 2011 22:05

The latest report suggests that it was a sudden maneouver by the Cargo ship which precipitated the accident. Remember also, that warships are typically MUCH smaller than cargo vessels. The average Panamax class cargo carrier is 60000 DWT (Deadweight Tonnes), smaller ones ranging from 20-30000DWT, while our Nilgiri class is a puny (by comparison) 3000t.

RMji, am aware, but would have thought that such crude tactics would have by now been abandoned by BR armchair admirals!

http://www.sify.com/news/cargo-vessel-h ... hdgcc.html

Cargo vessel hits naval warship, no casualties

2011-01-30

New Delhi, Jan 30 (IANS) A naval warship returning after a day out for service families had a close shave Sunday when a cargo vessel collided with it in the Mumbai harbour, causing minor damage. No one was injured, an officer said here.

INS Vindhyagiri was entering the Mumbai harbour after a day out at sea Sunday evening when the cargo vessel rammed into it in the inner harbour, the navy officer said.

The navy has ordered an inquiry into the accident.

The officer said the warship was cleared to enter the inner harbour and was sailing in when two cargo vessels were seen nearby.

'The two merchant vessels were crossing each others' path. Suddenly, one of them took a sharp turn to avoid the other vessel and ran into the warship,' the officer said, but would not give the name of the cargo ship.

The cargo vessel and its crew were detained for further questioning as part of the probe, he added.

INS Vindhyagiri, a frigate of the Nilgiri class, went out to sea carrying naval personnels' kin as part of a family day programme. At least 200 family members of naval personnel were on board.

'Nobody is injured in the incident. All are safe,' the officer said.

Vindhyagiri is a 3,000-tonne, 20-year-old frigate commissioned in the navy in 1981.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 30 Jan 2011 22:14

INS Vindhyagiri, INS Taragiri are the 2 ships not decommissioned out of 6 Nilgiri Class frigates built

The Nilgiri class is being decommissioned by the Navy. At least four ships have been decommissioned, with the remainder being used primarily for training and testing roles. These are due to be decommissioned by 2009-10, once the Shivalik class vessels enter service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilgiri_class_frigate

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 30 Jan 2011 22:17

it is not 20 year old actually it is 30 year old

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 30 Jan 2011 22:19

Yeah, they contradict themselves in that sentence. A typo probably.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Jan 2011 23:10

ASPuar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:What is wrong with the navy? If naval vessels cannot avoid merchant ships, how do they expect to avoid the enemy?
Do you know the facts and circs of the case, that you are commenting so freely? Do you know for a fact that the collision was caused due to the Naval vessels default? Are you well versed with what Mumbai Harbour is like, the topography, the congestion, and the general layout?
....
I would suggest that we Wait for the details of the incident to come out, before making such sweeping comments about the entire Navy.

Is this the first time this has happened? Have we previously lost an entire ship due to such an event? Why did the navy not take any action since then?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2011 23:15

how do you know the navy didn't take action ?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 30 Jan 2011 23:56

Vivek, what "action" would you have liked seen taken? If the action was shifting of the Naval WNC to another location, well, its in progress, no thanks to tardy approvals from Govt side, land acquisition issues, etc. If you think that navy officers arent fired for even minor infarctions at sea youre mistaken. So whats your point?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2011 00:29

Rahul M wrote:how do you know the navy didn't take action ?

Repeat of the incident!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2011 00:31

My point is this - increased professionalism so that such events do not occur.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 31 Jan 2011 04:48

Messing in our waters will not be tolerated: Navy chief

Pirates have begun to operate with impunity far away from their bases in and around Somalia since last year, with some even launching attacks in the eastern Arabian Sea near the Lakshadweep Islands.

India in response has deployed some Navy and Coast Guard frigates and fast attack craft, along with patrol aircraft, helicopters and marine commandos, to "locate and disable pirate mother ships and skiffs" and "sanitise" the area.

"After our stepped-up deployment there, the trend is that the pirates have begun to move westwards, back towards the African coast," Admiral Verma said.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 31 Jan 2011 06:11

It's the frequency of such incidents in Mumbai that underscore the impatience with which the Navy is waiting to move the fleet to Karwar. The Navy had foreseen the crowding of Mumbai way back in the late 1970s as interfering with operations.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 31 Jan 2011 06:52

Singha wrote:in WW2, carriers used to 'turn into the wind' before launching deckloads .... D

Singha, not just in world war two. That is also the preferred option in this day and age.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2011 08:22

people forget that ships are not bicycles which can stop and turn on a dime. these big container ships cant be easy to steer in confined areas.....they do not have bow thrusters unlike cruise ships and I think harbour tugs muscle them into and out of piers.

there was a slight collision of a talwar class ship and a merchant ship sometime earlier. I think one of our kilo subs also suffered some conning tower damage from a merchant ship few yrs ago.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jan 2011 10:06

Well thankfully no one got injured usually on a typical 'Day at Sea' when family members are on board alongside the crew and it becomes too crowded specially in the narrow alleys.

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 31 Jan 2011 11:20

Rahul M wrote:Deans, mumbai harbour is incredibly crowded and the navy has been asking for funds to shift its base to karwar since the last millenium. the CO will in all likelihood face court martial and take premature retirement, whether it's his fault or not. we are in no position to judge, for all we know the merchant vessel came and rammed him in a narrow stretch of water. let's wait for more info.

p.s. ASP sahab, I'm sure you know this but once upon a time naval battles did constitute of ships ramming each other, some 2000 years back.

Rahul, I'm quite famaliar with Mumbai harbour actually. It is crowded but not unusually so. Vessels entering /leaving the harbour operate at slow speed (typically 10 knots) so there is typically reasonable time to take evasive action. Yes, we need to wait for
the facts before jumping to conclusions, but I do hope that the facts come out and the proper lessons learnt.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 11:21

Vivek K wrote:My point is this - increased professionalism so that such events do not occur.

But my point is this: Your point is based on an assumption, which is that lack of professionalism on the part of the crew of the Naval vessel led to this accident.

So far, there is no proof of this. So its a rather big assumption to make. We should wait for a proper report.

On the contrary, it seems from news reports, that a sudden and unexpected maneouver on the part of the merchant ship led to the collision.

Your next complaint is that the "navy took no action" about some unspecified previous incident. On the contrary, in re the INS Prahar incident, the Captain of the ship was court martialled and fired. When an HDW class sub collided in the earlier half of the past decade the captain was also fired, although the damage was minimal. So the point about no action being taken is also wrong.

So why are you persisting in trying to make points which have no basis in currently known facts?

Ships (whether naval or merchant) which put out to sea will have accidents, despite the millions of hours of sea time that are collectively and safely sailed every day. Just like aircraft do crash, or have incidents, despite the millions of hours of collective safe flying time executed every day, and despite thorough and detailed reports prepared after every incident. That a collision has happened is no reason to initiate a slander campaign. The incident will be investigated, responsibility assigned, lessons learned, and life will go on. But if you imagine that through the waving of some magic wand, no incident will ever occur at sea, well, I wish you luck, and I hope you succeed, but Im skeptical of such success!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 11:38

I've experienced the waters off Bombay harbour extensively.I've also often wondered how there have not been more major collisions.Firstly,there are when the port is busy,scores of merchantmen at anchor in the "roads" waiting to enter harbour.There are also merchantmen exiting port.Add to this the proliferation of fishing vessels,wooden "bumboats" and ferries of diverse sizes and design,private speedboats and the increasing number of yachts,which must be a nightmare for the harbourmaster.If you throw into this cocktail the Indian navy and the assets of its fleet of the WNC,then incidents like the collision between the Vindhyagiri and the merchantman are bound to happen on occassion,especially when a sudden change of direction of one vessel affects another.One must remember that the paths of these vessels most often cross each others line and the hoot of the ships siren is often heard when two ships are veering close to each other.If the "rules of the road" are not kept,then disaster strikes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 12:24

Reports say that a fire has broken out in the engine room and that there is litle hope of saving the vessel.The Bombay Fire Brigade has been roped in to help douse the fire.

Warship on fire this morning after Sunday's collision
NDTV Correspondent, Updated: January 31, 2011 12:47 IST

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/mumb ... dingnow&cp

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 12:30

News is reporting people are still stuck on board. Prayers for the personnel and families on board. Hope they all make it off safe. This is apparently the third major collision (total loss) in the last year and a half at JNPT. The port says it has plans of upgrading its communications and piloting system.

nits · Post by **nits** » 31 Jan 2011 12:45

Messing in our waters will not be tolerated: Navy chief

The Navy's sinking of a pirate 'mother vessel' off the Lakshadweep Islands will send a "strong message" to the sea brigands that India will not tolerate their nefarious designs anywhere near its waters, "There is no question of anybody messing in our waters or area... it's absolutely unacceptable to us," Admiral Verma said.

"After our stepped-up deployment there, the trend is that the pirates have begun to move westwards, back towards the African coast," Admiral Verma said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 12:46

The collision was last evening and the fire reportedly breaking out this morning.A lot needs to be explained,especially if there are large numbers of ship's personnel still aboard.

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 Jan 2011 12:52

^^ News channels reporting that the vessel has gone down!!!

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 31 Jan 2011 12:54

INS Vindhyagiri Sinks off the Coast of Mumbai

ya INS Vindhyagiri goes down

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2011 13:04

a lot needs to be explained...what happened between last night to now...what was the damage how it caught fire...

there is a video on Ibnlive.com showing fire fighting ops dockside !! ship listing heavily....will likely settle on the bottom in shallow water and be salvaged away

seems to be naval dockyard...3 other ships seen in background...imagine if this ship had carried munitions which exploded...would have launched projectiles halfway across south mumbai.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 13:12

A great loss no matter how old the ship was and even if it was being used for just training.With the CG vessel, Vikram also lost in a similar collision not too long ago,some immediate and remedial measures should be taken for Bombay harbour especially when naval vessels are operating.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 13:42

Yes, yesterday the reports were that the collision occurred, a fire happened, which was contained, everyone was safe. Now we hear the ship has been sunk. Reasons?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2011 14:14

TOI -

The Indian Navy which has been using Nethrani Island, situated 20 nautical miles from Karwar, for bombardment practice has written to the government to reserve its rights to use the area as target practice location.

The Western Ghats Task Force, however, is opposing the move and along with the biodiversity board has written to the naval command at Karwar and the defence ministry to ask Kadamba naval base to find other locations for target practice.

“This island is very precious. It is the last island that has the Western Ghats’ biodiversity intact and the state government has already declared it as a state biodiversity heritage site. The Navy should understand what that means. It is shocking that the Western Command has written to the Navy headquarters to retain Nethrani Island as a target practice,” said Ananth Hegde Ashisara, chairman, Karnataka Western Ghats Task Force.

Speaking on the sidelines of a three-day event, Sahyadri Festival, organised by the Save Western Ghats Movement at Mijar village near Mangalore on Friday, Ashisara said, “Sources in the central government secretariat had told me that the Navy will not let go of the Nethrani Island. But Iam determined to stop this madness of bombarding theisland. It has several types of endangered species, including Nest Swiftlet (a bird) which is in the critically endangered species list. The Corals and many other varieties of fish including white sharks are also found in the area.”

Ashisar said that the Navy had remarked that the island was uncharted. In reality, the Nethrani Island came under the jurisdictional territory of Uttara Kannada district.

“I have survey reports to prove it. When called for, I will provide them to the government. Right now I have a bone to chew with the Navy and the defence ministry,” he said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 14:47

I'm sure that the IN can use floating targets instead of bombarding an island with such rare bio-diverse heritage.Once gone,it can never be recreated.If floating targets can be used for missile practice such as Brahmos,why can't gunnery practice too be at sea using speial floating targets/markers/buoys?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 14:56

Sounds to me like a rerun of the US Navy-Vieques protests... if you dig a bit deeper, it may just turn out to be another NGO type looking for a padma shri by rehashing a US event.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Jan 2011 15:16

^^ Ref Vindhyagiri, I was there, on another vessel, and personally witnessed the incident.

At 5 pm, the day at sea ended, and various IN ships were entering the harbour. They proceed with proper caution. For example, all IN ships did not enter the harbour at the same time to avoid crowding. Each ship, including large ones like tanker Aditya and carrier Viraat, as well as smaller submarines, entered the harbour individually, with significant time and distance between them.

IN fleet tugs, as well as Naval Dockyard tugs were deployed on a precautionary basis, even before the incident happened.

It so happened there was a very strong high tide yesterday. The tide was flowing (ie, the sea was going inside the harbour very strongly). Tides cause a ship to yaw and drift from its course, and need to be compensated by the helm. The cargo ships did not adequetely compensate for the tide and drifted on a collision course, and the incident happend.

All families, except key ship personnel, were taken off board by waiting tugs by 6 pm. The evaculation was completed in 20 minutes.

PS - I learnt only today that the ship has sunk. When I left, around 7 pm, everyone, including preliminary damamge control reports indicated all is well. Probably electricals were damaged, that wasnt discovered in the initial structural damage control, that caused the fire.

Anyways, Dunagiri was decommissioned once Shivalik entered service. As the last two 17 enter service, last two Leanders were anyways to be decommissioned.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2011 15:41

If such a large movement of naval warships and subs were entering the naval dockyard,then as a precautionary measure there should've been a ban on movement of merchantmen,other vessels until the naval "day at sea" was over.

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 31 Jan 2011 15:41

^^^ Request Confirmation of the Vessel sinking, has it really sunk or are efforts still on to prevent this. Hope there are no mortalities and also wishing that the vessel is not sunk either.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 31 Jan 2011 15:48

Philip wrote:If such a large movment of naval warships and subs were entering the naval dockyard,then there should've been a ban on ovement of merchantmen,other vessels until the naval "day at sea" was over.

tsarkar wrote:They proceed with proper caution. For example, all IN ships did not enter the harbour at the same time to avoid crowding. Each ship, including large ones like tanker Aditya and carrier Viraat, as well as smaller submarines, entered the harbour individually, with significant time and distance between them.

Mumbai Port Trust harbour control, like Air Traffic Control, controls movements within the harbour. The merchant ships in the incident were not in their designated channels because the of the strong tide.

Amit J wrote:^^^ Request Confirmation of the Vessel sinking, has it really sunk or are efforts still on to prevent this. Hope there are no mortalities and also wishing that the vessel is not sunk either.

I believe it sank on the anchorage today morning. I passed Vindhyagiri alongside yesterday around 17:30 when my ship was proceeding towards the anchorage. It was surrounded by tugs and ferries taking families off. The crew remained on board, the ship looked structurally sound, and preliminary structural damage control reports were OK.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 15:49

Philip, its the busiest port in the country, and delays are already running into days... duobt that such a ban could be implemented. Ergo, WNC's pleas for shifting elsewhere...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 15:53

News reports suggest that flooding from firefighting efforts has caused capsize.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 31 Jan 2011 15:54

This is absolutely baffling.

I was at INS Viraat yesterday due to the family-day and we were waiting for the smaller boats to take us to the shore when we heard about the accident. The boats meant for us were re-directed and hence there was a delay in our departure. Finally when we boarded a transfer-boat, on the way I saw the ship that had been brought near the harbour opposite Gateway.
My observations from what I saw:
- there was no smoke or fire
- people had left the strikken vessel (as told by navy people around) though I could clearly see people running on the deck 'towards the damage' meaning they were from the Navy
- Fire tenders (3) had collected near place where one dismbarks in the naval dockyard very near the Gateway but of course cut off from the Gateway.
- two tugs were towards the rear of the ship
- Most important - the damage was on the port side. A boat of the size of a tug (yes I know what a tug is)(and hence much smaller to the Navy vessel - unlike the scenario where someone said that the navy vessels are smaller than the cargo vessel) was literally STUCK in a massive hole on the port side.
- The tug/small boat was absoliutely stuck in the hole that was a few meters away from the front portion of the INS (I forgotten what the front is called - aft???)
- there was absolutely NO cargo on that small boat!!
- the area where the boat had hit the bigger boat was just above the water line. and it looked to be a structural damage though a major one.

Hence it just beats me
1. how can the vessel catch fire? that too next day!!!
2. why is the media reporting a cargo vessel having struck the ship?

We had a wonderful time with the Navy people yesterday. This incident in the evening dampened the whole atmosphere. It is specifically painful as it was a family day and all the ships had huge number of family and friends of the sailors.

I personally feeling a huge sense of loss almost as if it is a personal loss

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 31 Jan 2011 15:57

Vindhyagiri has sunk (peacefully). No loss of life.

Engine room pipes and plumbing had burst.

All armoury was recovered and off loaded to shore before she sank.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 31 Jan 2011 16:07

VikB wrote:This is absolutely baffling.

I was at INS Viraat yesterday due to the family-day and we were waiting for the smaller boats to take us to the shore when we heard about the accident. The boats meant for us were re-directed and hence there was a delay in our departure. Finally when we boarded a transfer-boat, on the way I saw the ship that had been brought near the harbour opposite Gateway.
My observations from what I saw:
- there was no smoke or fire
- people had left the strikken vessel (as told by navy people around) though I could clearly see people running on the deck 'towards the damage' meaning they were from the Navy
- Fire tenders (3) had collected near place where one dismbarks in the naval dockyard very near the Gateway but of course cut off from the Gateway.
- two tugs were towards the rear of the ship
- Most important - the damage was on the port side. A boat of the size of a tug (yes I know what a tug is)(and hence much smaller to the Navy vessel - unlike the scenario where someone said that the navy vessels are smaller than the cargo vessel) was literally STUCK in a massive hole on the port side.
- The tug/small boat was absoliutely stuck in the hole that was a few meters away from the front portion of the INS (I forgotten what the front is called - aft???)
- there was absolutely NO cargo on that small boat!!
- the area where the boat had hit the bigger boat was just above the water line. and it looked to be a structural damage though a major one.

Hence it just beats me
1. how can the vessel catch fire? that too next day!!!
2. why is the media reporting a cargo vessel having struck the ship?

We had a wonderful time with the Navy people yesterday. This incident in the evening dampened the whole atmosphere. It is specifically painful as it was a family day and all the ships had huge number of family and friends of the sailors.

I personally feeling a huge sense of loss almost as if it is a personal loss

Vik, your firsthand account is most interesting. It could also account for "anonymous" JNPT personnel rushing to blame the navy vessel, if it is possible that their own vessel is involved in the accident. Was it in fact a tug, or was it some other vessel that you saw?

The questions you have put are pertinent, and important. For such a massive accident, its surprising how little info is coming out...

Rahul, glad to hear that there was no loss of life. Thank god.