Indian Naval Discussion

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 12:02

Austin, there's something called institutional inertia. once the bastion strategy has been followed for sometime RuN clearly sees no need to change track and risk their subs in the open ocean.

>> its also a myth that US submarine patrol the world ocean with ssbn , they too follow a similar strategy where they patrol in selected area which are defended by SSN and other assets like ruskies

it's not a myth boss. of course any such sub would patrol in selected pre-surveyed areas but these areas are not across the coast from mainland unlike RuN practice. also, if needed USN can sanitise areas far away from home, a capability that any other navy lacks.

>> Delta 4 noise level was no worse then ohio generally speaking

source ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2011 12:18

Rahul M wrote:Austin, there's something called institutional inertia. once the bastion strategy has been followed for sometime RuN clearly sees no need to change track and risk their subs in the open ocean.

ITs a well thought out strategy based on real solutions to real problem , why should they go to the open ocean when all they need to do it to hurl their missile to conus and can be better protected ? What is institutional inertia about this strategy , would patrolling on US East or West coast will make it better protected with modern submarines ?

Can you tell me why should they change the present so called institutional inertia strategy , will patrolling in open ocean like Atlantic or Indian ocean many hundred miles away from base will look much cooler ?

it's not a myth boss. of course any such sub would patrol in selected pre-surveyed areas but these areas are not across the coast from mainland unlike RuN practice. also, if needed USN can sanitise areas far away from home, a capability that any other navy lacks.

Every nations works out strategy based on its strengths and weakness , so US navy followed the same strategy away from bases but still had the same bastion concept , Russian follow the same strategy closer to home since they would better defend their sub with their assets closer to home then in open ocean with no real advantage.

source ?

Norman Polmar book "Cold War Submarine" has reference to it plus other russian designer interview. Delta 4 is a formidable opponent in destructive power and discretion , atleast any thing better FSU/RuN could put in the ocean till date and will remain so for the next 15 years after upgrades not withstanding their new toy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 12:29

Shrinivasanm has a mail from a member of the bear family.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 13:08

Singha wrote:Shrinivasanm has a mail from a member of the bear family.

bears should have received some honey.. 2 pots.

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Jul 2011 13:15

Shrinivasan wrote:
Singha wrote:yeah I thought so too. looking at terrain I can guess where it really will be.
Can you email me your contact @ Shriniva$anm ATT gmal daat kaaaam. i have got some info on Rambili for you.

Saar, are SDRE IT-vity folks allowed darshan of this info? Will mail if so...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 13:35

well cough cough nothing top secret its all open src, India has proven expertise in the design and execution of huge underground caverns
http://www.salpg.com/Gallery/index.html (LPG stored by water pressure)
some tech details:
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/busine ... 778-2.html

any user of google earth can scour the country and dhoti shiver at where the flowers are lurking.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 13:54

sum wrote:Saar, are SDRE IT-vity folks allowed darshan of this info? Will mail if so...

Can you email me...

JVKrishnan · Post by **JVKrishnan** » 07 Jul 2011 14:14

Russians to take more time to deliver Gorshkov

St Petersburg: Amid the buzz at Russia's most happening naval show - the maritime exhibition at St Petersburg - word is that the Gorshkov aircraft carrier could be further delayed. There's no official confirmation of that neither from the Sevmash shipyard nor the Russian Defence Ministry.

But naval sources told CNN-IBN there appeared to be problems with the supply of certain steels to the yard. The sources said this was an internal problem in Russia involving different ministries. But unless resolved speedily this could see the carrier's delivery put off to 2013.

A high level Indian defence delegation was recently at the Sevmash yard to take stock of the situation. It's not clear what new measures are being recommended to expedite delivery of the Gorshkov. What's clear is that the Indian Navy may have to wait some more time for the Gorshkov.

Problems also with the delivery of the second line of Talwar Class frigates - three of which are being built at the Yantar shipyard.

The first was to be handed over in November this year to the Indian Navy. But is now expected to be delivered only next February. Reason for the delay - because the Yantar yard is building warships after a long break. The chief of the shipyard was replaced.

The new chief - only 48 hours into his job - refused to comment but there was an oblique hint from elsewhere.

Deputy General Director at Rosoboronexport Viktor Komardin said, "We see different obstacles and hurdles on the way. Bureaucracy, then crisis of different kinds which raises the normal steps makes it twice more expensive. It is economy, it is bureaucracy. It is caution you understand because each project is the leading one."

The delay could see the cost of the Talwar go up. Adding to the acrimony between the two capitals and undermining a crucial pillar of the India-Russia partnership.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 14:20

Singha wrote:well cough cough nothing top secret its all open src, India has proven expertise in the design and execution of huge underground caverns
any user of google earth can scour the country and dhoti shiver at where the flowers are lurking.

Sandeep Unithan says, Phase I of Rambilli should be ready in 2011, even commissioned...sounds far fetched though. this was in 2008.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 15:09

IN must be rueing 1000x times the gorshov decision. getting a INS Cavour mki built to spec in italy from scratch would have been cheaper with 20/20 hindsight. the Cavour is 244mx39m, the design team could have managed a 15% scaling up without much issues to match the gorshkov deck length...and a full hanger getting rid of the aft parking area for vehicles in cavour.

phew. I hate this. I hate this. we could have had this in service by now or nearly so, with a full 50 yr lifespan ahead.

John · Post by **John** » 07 Jul 2011 17:34

Singha wrote:IN must be rueing 1000x times the gorshov decision. getting a INS Cavour mki built to spec in italy from scratch would have been cheaper with 20/20 hindsight. the Cavour is 244mx39m, the design team could have managed a 15% scaling up without much issues to match the gorshkov deck length...and a full hanger getting rid of the aft parking area for vehicles in cavour.

phew. I hate this. I hate this. we could have had this in service by now or nearly so, with a full 50 yr lifespan ahead.

Till Cavour was completed i doubt Fincantieri had the bandwidth to take up vessel even bigger than it. Besides Cavour costs 1.5 billion euros, Cavour Mki adjusted for changes and inflation would go well over 2 billion Euros. Heck if we can do that why not just throw 3 billion euros and get a CVF... For better or worse IN went with Gorshkov because it was cheapest solution.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 07 Jul 2011 17:50

Saab 2000 MPA with Selex AESA radar on offer to Indian Navy MRMR

Bangalore: The Saab 2000 multi-role Maritime Patrol Aircraft equipped with an AESA radar and a Saab RBS 15 anti-ship missiles is being offered to the Indian Navy to meet the growing challenges in India’s maritime domain stretching across 2 million square km.

The Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar onboard SAAB 2000 MPA is a modern high performance system that supports the full range of maritime surveillance and coherent imaging modes used for both naval and overland operations.

Saab 2000 MPA which is being offered for India’s Medium Range Maritime Reconnaissance (MRMR) program will be equipped with a state-of-art Selex AESA radar and RBS 15 Anti Ship Missile.

The AESA radar provides Saab 2000 MPA with Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) capability with customized interrogator functions. The AESA surveillance radar is supported by a Saab R4A AIS transponder receiver/transmitter system for locating and identifying any naval activity. The AIS system also provides an encrypted data link. For close range detection, identification and recording of surface objects and activities, Saab 2000 MPA incorporates Electro-Optic (HDTV) and Thermal Imager sensors. The Saab 2000 MPA system incorporates an ELINT system providing the capability to intercept and collect intelligence information consisting of detailed information of e.g. complex emitters active signal components, the relationship and the dynamics between active signal components.

The Saab 2000 MPA on offer is also equipped with an ESM system for automatic identification of RF signal sources and Direction Finding of RF signal sources with high accuracy. For self protection, a SPS system is installed including radar warning receivers, missile approach warning sensors, laser warning sensors as well as chaff and flare dispensers.

The Saab 2000 MPA comes equipped with a COMINT system that complements the baseline ELINT system for enhanced SIGINT capabilities. The installed COMINT system includes both a Direction Finder function and an Intercept System.

The Saab 2000 MPA is equipped with a Command & Control (C2) system that integrates, and assists in controlling all mission sensors and provides the user interface to mission operators, via four (4) workstations installed side-by-side in the cabin facing starboard, and to the pilots via a dedicated tactical display. The workstations also provide access to the mission communication system.

The Saab 2000 MPA has a cruising speed of 350 knots, it can climb to an altitude of 20,000 ft in 10 minutes, reaching operating area 1,000 nautical miles afar within three hours. It can operate from high altitude airfields, taking off with maximum load and fuel even at very hot temperatures. Flight safety is maintained throughout all flight conditions, including single engine operations, where the aircraft can maintain altitude at 20,000 ft. The Saab 2000 MPA can operate at a maximum range exceeding 2000 nautical miles, with mission endurance exceeding 9.5 hours. The Saab 2000 MPA can carry out a mission covering a 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for 5.5 hours at an altitude of 2,000 ft, or longer patrol times at higher altitudes even up to 31000 ft. The aircraft on offer comes with promised 35,000 flight hours and a guaranteed support for 25 years by SAAB.

The Saab 2000 MPA comes equipped with Saab RBS 15 anti-ship missile system. Its unique Command & Control (C2) system facilitates a seamless planning of missile launching zones, trajectories and target seeking activities. The missile launching sequence and priming are controlled by customized Store Management Unit.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2011 18:44

Please,in hindsight one can criticise any decision taken a decade ago.When the Gorshkov decision was taken,no one else was willing to sell us a true carrier ,none were also available barring the Varyag,even larger, and at that time we had no port/base able to accomodate it,also at a time when we did not have huge funds as we do now at our disposal.The Cavour class was rejected becasue it can only operate VSTOL aircraft and was too small for IN purposes.The IN had to fight a huge battle remember to increase the size of the home built "ADS" as the carrier was first called,from 30,000t to its current size approaching 40,000t.
What were the naval strke aircraft also offered to us from the west then? Nothing! The MOD/IN had to take a quick decision and even with the Gorky took a few years before finalising it.All that was available then,was the most practical option of converting the Gorshkov and equipping it with naval Fulcrums.The problem was as anyone who does a renovation/repair job will tell you,that you only know the cost when the job is finished.At the beginning,one can only work out an estimate.
Here both sides sadly failed misearably.The IN had enough time to examine the carrier and so too did the yard.

For comparison,Look at today's report in the media about the LCA,Further delays and the IOC date is beginning to get very difficult to achieve,that too with only the lower-performance MK-1 having a production rate of only "5" aircraft per year! The MK-2 prototype is nowhere on the horizon and with the MMRCA date of induction given as 2017,the IAF wants more LCAs to "fill the gap",which is looking impossible right now.Forget about the Kaveri engine which will never power the LCA.As I said before,let's make out a list of all major defence projects both desi and imported and see which have problems,why and what can be done to reduce such delays and cost overruns in the future.

As for those critical about my observations about our N-subs,bases ,etc.,they do not comprehend the enormity of setting up nuclear sub facilities for SSBNs,SSGNs,etc.,which require quite different facilities than for conventional subs of far smaller size.One Akula is 4 times larger than a Kilo and one ATV twice as large.We will be operating about 12+ of them in the future,even more than the UK will have.Comments that "what do the Russians care.." are quite cheap and asinine,as without well-known Russian assistance,we would not have an ATV in the water in the first place.The pro-Yanqui media has tried unsuccessfully to try and blacken the Indo-Russian defence relationship and at the moment the US is smarting a a perceived "snub" licking its wounds with the dumping of its old ladies in the MMRCA contest.This is not to deny that there are problems and issues that need sorting out with Russian orders.I've also pointed out ad-nauseum the same problems that we face with western suppliers,which critics keep quiet about! We supposedly invoked penalties for the late delay of the first batch of Talwars and even put the screws on BAe for the Hawks problems,so there are systems already in place for delays and contractual infringements.Not being party to the details which are classified, it is meaningless of us to pass final judgement without knowing the full detalils and relying upon media reports instead of official GOI/MOD/CAG statements,which would be more authentic.

What matters in the end is that the services get what they want with the least amount of delays and cost overruns and that the level of indigenisation makes a steady upwards progress.We are nowhere capable of even 50% of indigenous content in most desi programmes,barring the missile programmes which have been the most successful.The tech. requirement and challenge in both subs/warships and aircraft requires us to seek assitance from outside.A cruel but hard fact.The fact is that we are caught between poor delivery of the goods,on time and within budget by our PSUs and have to rely upon expensive foreign imports and the problem of indifferent support at times.This is due to our lack of evolving a strategic doctrine for the future which includes the armed forces (we've just seen the MEA and HM vetoing the IA's wish to control the ITBP,as if the great efforts of the surrender-monkeys of the MEA has made the Chinese threat reduce when in fact it has dramatically increased!),planning for needs well in time,timely decision making,funding projects,being focussed to deliver on time and making the PSUs and their babu bosses accountable as much as we would wish foreign suppliers to also be accountable.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jul 2011 18:55

Ah, I see Philiposky has gone into "LCA is delayed onlee. SDRE's can't do anything on time also. So Gorshkov delay and budget overrun is all understandable onlee" mode.

Philip wrote: As for those critical about my observations abut our N-subs,bases ,etc.,they do not comprehend the enormity of setting up nuclear sub facilities for SSBNs,SSGNs,etc.,when we will be operating about 12+ of them in the future,more than the UK will have.

What we cannot comprehend, is your automatic assumption that the delay in the delivery of the Nerpa has to be because of IN not having a base for it and that it cannot be the fault of the Russians.
Do you think that the IN signed the Nerpa deal and then sat on their behinds for several years without thinking of where they would base it? This is ridiculous.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2011 19:00

Philip wrote:All that was available then,the most practical option was converting the Gorshkov and equipping it with naval Fulcrums.

Exactly the crux of the matter , when the deal was finalised nothing else was available which was cost effective even with escalation , as Mehta said to press with $2 billion cheque he would provide to any one who can buy a carrier for him of size of Gorshkov.

According to russian press the Indian MOD was given an option of a golden handshake by Russian MOD where RuN was willing to keep the carrier and the money paid up front with penalty money was to be paid to cancel the deal but that didnt go through either because we insisted on keeping the carrier but in the hind sight we could have done that , it would have been good decision for both.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 19:11

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Austin, there's something called institutional inertia. once the bastion strategy has been followed for sometime RuN clearly sees no need to change track and risk their subs in the open ocean.
ITs a well thought out strategy based on real solutions to real problem , why should they go to the open ocean when all they need to do it to hurl their missile to conus and can be better protected ? What is institutional inertia about this strategy , would patrolling on US East or West coast will make it better protected with modern submarines ?

which has its own problems, as I said earlier. the adversary knows where the missiles are going to come from and can position his ABM systems accordingly and also knows where to find the enemy subs. however, sub noise reduction is not russia's strength so they didn't change track. instead they went for ICBMs that could beat the ABM systems, which is their strength. this is the price they have to pay for bastion strategy and they are willing to pay it.
to sum up, bastion strategy has its pro's and con's, just like any other strategy.

Can you tell me why should they change the present so called institutional inertia strategy , will patrolling in open ocean like Atlantic or Indian ocean many hundred miles away from base will look much cooler ?

answered above. looking cooler has nothing to do with. the same reason armies like to attack from unexpected directions and locations.
it's not a myth boss. of course any such sub would patrol in selected pre-surveyed areas but these areas are not across the coast from mainland unlike RuN practice. also, if needed USN can sanitise areas far away from home, a capability that any other navy lacks.
Every nations works out strategy based on its strengths and weakness , so US navy followed the same strategy away from bases but still had the same bastion concept , Russian follow the same strategy closer to home since they would better defend their sub with their assets closer to home then in open ocean with no real advantage.

they didn't follow the bastion concept but they could create something similar if they wanted, which is not the same as saying they did. clearly, they seem to think the advantages of long range det patrols outweigh the advantages of bastion patrol. I am pretty sure USN doesn't do deterrence patrols to look cool.

source ?
Norman Polmar book "Cold War Submarine" has reference to it plus other russian designer interview. Delta 4 is a formidable opponent in destructive power and discretion , atleast any thing better FSU/RuN could put in the ocean till date and will remain so for the next 15 years after upgrades not withstanding their new toy.

aha, I have been looking for that book for sometime.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 07 Jul 2011 19:15

Agree with Philip at-least on one point that in hindsight everyone seems so smart.. .. lets put ourselves in decision makers shoe at that time and discuss the viability of the Gorkshov order..plus cost and time overrun is not an alien concept in Indian context.. when we ourselves fail so miserably to do anythin in time in every aspects of our life we should be knowing when a potential seller is too aggressive on timeline to deliver a product.. .. we should be aware of over confidence and unfeasibility of milestones during procurement.........

I remember during one of my own project we provided an estimate for a piece of work which was 50% lower than client expectation .. and that estimation cost us losing the contract as client realized we dont know the enormity of the requirement... only catch here though is that .. the ship was in possession with Russia ..so probably they were in best place to judge the enormity of the requirement .. but at that time they were so hard pressed for cash .. that they simply overlooked it... for other projects .. where we provided the requirements.. we should do a better job .. of validating estimates..

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 07 Jul 2011 19:47

prithvi wrote:..so probably they were in best place to judge the enormity of the requirement .. but at that time they were so hard pressed for cash .. that they simply overlooked it... for other projects .. where we provided the requirements.. we should do a better job .. of validating estimates..

So is it our fault or theirs ? Didnt you lose your project when you quoted 50% less ? A contract is a contract and of course it was not signed when they were drunk or something, if they were desperate for cash then they should have the ethics to honour whatever deals they make. If there is a million miles of wiring in a carrier do you expect us to go through each and every section and estimate ? who is the seller here, they or us ?

And i dont understand Philiposky's theory here, we are going to buy something in the first place because we know that if we attempt it there might be cost overruns. We have been ripped in this deal and thats it, no amount of sugar coating will help in covering up the acts of the untrustworthy Rodayyas. And that thing about Nerpa'snot having a base is a shocker, they can deliver the subs it is very well our prerogative whether to take delivery or not. If they had delivered we could have very well deployed our crew there and operate for a year or so until the facilities came up(assuming they were not there already) and operating a nuke sub is supposed to be less maintenance intensive than diesel ones so dont know what special sub parking/overhauling facilities are needed

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 07 Jul 2011 20:35

suryag wrote:
prithvi wrote:..so probably they were in best place to judge the enormity of the requirement .. but at that time they were so hard pressed for cash .. that they simply overlooked it... for other projects .. where we provided the requirements.. we should do a better job .. of validating estimates..
So is it our fault or theirs ? Didnt you lose your project when you quoted 50% less ?

.. yes.. but in this case we should have not awarded the deal then.. no? .. you want to go to the moon.. and you dont know moon does not have oxygen.... is not a valid excuse.. ... the due diligence team fuc** up.. on the cost part.. restoring a rusting ship is going to be more costly than building a new one.. if you look at the overall TOC...

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jul 2011 21:41

prithvi wrote: the due diligence team fuc** up.. on the cost part.. restoring a rusting ship is going to be more costly than building a new one.. if you look at the overall TOC...

Who is supposed to come up with a realistic cost estimate? The party which is going to actually refurbish the ship, in their shipyard, or the person buying it?
And once the contract is signed, whose responsibility is it to deliver the ship as per the parameters laid down in the contract?
Why did the Russians sign the contract if the work required could not be completed in the specified timeframe and within the specified budget? And if they "fuc**d up on the cost part" why blame the IN?

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 07 Jul 2011 22:42

nachiket wrote:
prithvi wrote: the due diligence team fuc** up.. on the cost part.. restoring a rusting ship is going to be more costly than building a new one.. if you look at the overall TOC...
Who is supposed to come up with a realistic cost estimate? The party which is going to actually refurbish the ship, in their shipyard, or the person buying it?
And once the contract is signed, whose responsibility is it to deliver the ship as per the parameters laid down in the contract?
Why did the Russians sign the contract if the work required could not be completed in the specified timeframe and within the specified budget? And if they "fuc**d up on the cost part" why blame the IN?

In an ideal world whatever you said sounds just about correct ..but if you have experience of procurement management in real world... you should be knowing estimation of greenfield project or project of this magnitude is a collaborative effort and not just the vendor... what are you going to do if Russians had clearly underbid the project from time and cost perspective? are you going to put a gun in their head? do you have that kind of leverage? I understand in many cases contractor do provide free services for estimation goof-up on their part in the hope of maintaining good relations and future contracts...

the challenge here is that all the current project delays and cost overruns involves projects that started round about at the same time not allowing us to penalize them in real manners....

that said I still believe corroborating an estimation and finding obvious gaps is a big responsibility of procurement management best practice which should be IN responsibility..

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Jul 2011 07:47

India plans to buy the MQ-4C unmanned aerial vehicles

At the first, the MQ-4C was called BAMS UAV, it is used to supple the P-8A “Poseidon” Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft remodified by Boeing 737.

This MQ-4C BAMS UAV have 36 hours battery life, so it is able to perform the task at 60,000 feet and to fight against strong winds and bad weather, and it also can upload 3200 pounds. The MQ-4C is fitted with 2D AESA radar, which can help to the vast sea area and 360 degrees coverage.

Recently, U.S. Northrop Grumman company have received the RFI from the India Defense, and they replied it throught the official channel. Northrop Grumman company have obtain the necessary permits from U.S. government, they have prepared to supply the MQ-4C Global Hawk UAV, which is improved in the maritime surveillance tasks.

Indian Navy have ordered 12 P-8I, which is the export-oriented model of U.S. Navy’s P-8A Poseidon. It is mainly used to replace the previous generation of turboprop-powered P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft.

MQ-4C can provide Indian Navy the tactical platform to scan the vast surface of Indian Ocean and the underwater vessels of enemy. Compared with other monitor aircarft which doing similar tasks, the MQ-4C cost less spends.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jul 2011 09:16

prithvi wrote:the challenge here is that all the current project delays and cost overruns involves projects that started round about at the same time not allowing us to penalize them in real manners....

We did penalize them when the first three of Talwar class was delayed due to some technical reason , the penalized money was adjusted in buying the second 3 frigate , iirc the amount was ~ $38 million.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2011 15:59

in this case the penalties can be adjusted against the next bout of money squeezing for the gorshkov.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jul 2011 16:26

Stronger Tides : 'Pakistan warship violates safety norms, damages Indian Frigate'
Sandeep Unnithan

The June 16 incident in which a Pakistani warship "brushed past" an Indian frigate in the Gulf of Aden is not the first time that Pakistan has indulged in a hostile act on the high seas. It has aggressively baited Indian warships with, at least, three hostile acts recorded in the past few months. "We have seen a gradual ratcheting up of tensions at sea," admits a senior defence official. Officials say the June 16 incident was reported only because it became a major diplomatic incident between the two countries. It is also the first time that warships from both sides have actually made contact.

In the latest incident, the PNS Babur was escorting the MV Suez, an Egyptian-owned merchant vessel freed by Somali pirates, back to Pakistan when the INS Godavari arrived. The Pakistani warship approached the Indian vessel from the rear, causing superficial damage to the helicopter nets that had been spread out. Officials say Pakistan went on to accuse India of hampering rescue operations and brushing past the Babur. The charge that was hotly contested by both the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Indian Navy, which submitted video and photographic evidence of the encounter to Pakistan.

It is almost an unwritten rule for both navy forces to shadow each other's warships from a respectable distance. However, over the past few months, Pakistani warships have manoeuvred their warships into several "close quarter situations" with their Indian counterparts, steaming past as close as 80 feet of them. Pakistani crewmen then shout obscenities and wave weaponries at the Indian sailors. The nautical equivalent of a "near miss" in aviation circles was a tactic used by the Soviet Union against NATO warships during the Cold War.

Such tactics blatantly violate Confidence Building Measures (CBM) signed ratified by both governments in 1992. The CBMS, drawn up after an Indian warship captain fired at a Pakistani maritime reconnaissance aircraft, mandated that warships of both sides stay three nautical miles (six km) away from each other. It also prohibited 'buzzing', or close passes made by aircraft, and informing each other of major naval exercises involving more than six warships.

These CBMS seem to have been consigned to history. In one incident a few years back, a Pakistani warship's helicopter flew above the Indian frigate helicopter deck, preventing an Indian naval helicopter from landing. Another Pakistani ship sailed provocatively close to the aircraft carrier INS Viraat. There have been cases of Pakistani crewmen stripping and flashing crew of Indian aircraft.

"Such actions smack of unprofessionalism," says Vice Admiral J.S. Bedi, former western naval commander. "No navy worth its salt would tolerate such actions," he adds. Naval officers say such actions are being condoned and even encouraged by the Pakistani brass. "If the capttain of the INS Godavari did what his Pakistani counterpart did, he would face a court-martial," a naval official says.

"We have a dilemma," says a defence official. "If we respond, we run the risk of escalating the situation. But if we don't respond, we risk the demoralisation of our crew," he says. Both the government and Indian Navy have advised extreme caution in such hair-trigger situations because warships operate far from their shores and are heavily armed with missiles and guns.

One reason for Pakistani belligerence, say defence officials, is the growing confidence of its navy. Since 2001, it has added new platforms. The Chinese-built frigate, PNS Zulfiqar, was the first 'brand new' warship acquired by the Pakistan Navy that has so far only operated hand-me-downs from the US and UK navies. It has also gained expertise and respect by operating with international navies. It has commanded the multinational Combined Task Force-151 (CTF-151) four times since 2009. The force comprising five navies was set up two years ago to conduct counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and Somali basin. This has led to a tendency for it to challenge the dominance of the Indian Navy, which is not part of the CTF-151.

There have been no direct CBMS between the two navies that would normally include port calls by each other's warships. While the armies of both sides have flag meetings to de-escalate tensions, there is no contact between the Indian and Pakistan navies. "We need something more than just CBMS to avoid such incidents at sea," says Vice Admiral Suresh Bangara, former deputy naval chief.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 Jul 2011 16:32

Turkish Naval Ships arrive at Mumbai on maiden visit

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jul 2011 16:34

i think IN ships should keep hoses ready and if pak crew indulge in bravado then they get a soaking
everything must be video'ed and leaked to the news media as "ridiculous thing happened today..." articles
IN ships should also keep live rounds in the main guns and have the kashtan safety locks off...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2011 16:39

yes broadcasting them pants down in 1080p on CNN and NDTV and TimesNow is the best way forward. every Indian ship must have good video eqpt for these clips. upload it to youtube and make PN the laughing stock of the biraderi.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2011 18:06

The Gorshkov saga is history now.We now know the reasons for the unrealistic low estimate (re-wiring woefully under-estimated apartf rom other repair work),and were faced with Hobson's choce.Take the money back or stick with the carrier at revised costs.In the interests of the country and its security challenges,we've stuck with the carrier as the least harmful of the two decisions.A painful and expensive lesson ,one that we should think about when taking a decision on the M-2000 upgrades.

The Akula deal is shrouded in mystery.One reason for the delay was the tragic accident during its trials.The set the date back by at least half a year,until the inquiry into the accident was over.We have had broad hints that a massive new N-sub base is being built,to house a huge new N-sub fleet of the IN including our strategic deterrent,with little clear details of the same.This sub and all other N-subs are to be based here,supposedly in nuclear blast-proof pens,and will require huge support in every way,technical and human.We also know that several sets of submariners have been sent to Russia for training for N-subs and that one (official) reason for the delay was that the training was incomplete.The Akula is also supposed to be part of the entire deal which includes ATV support.Add to this the statement from the CNS that by 2012 the ATV will be commissioned and that our sea-based deterrent will then be operational,which will require two crews (blue and gold,like US SSBNs) and one can see that by next year we should have at least 3-4 trained crews to man the two N-subs which will have been commissioned.Their support at the base to include N-tipped missiles,etc., is a massive challenge and we are quite rightly being kept in the dark about its progress.Therefore ,as I said before,it is pointless to keep speculating about the reasons for any delay in induction-we are told it will be before the end of 2011,one reason perhaps is that the GOI might want to commission the ATV earlier or almost simultaneously.

If one needs to speculate further,there is another factor to consider.ATV-2 should've been launched by this time,as even when ATV-1 was launched,the hulls for two more were already ready.Launching ATV-2 only after ATV-1 has completed her trials is probably being contemplated.Therefore,the trials crew of ATV-1 has to hand over the sub to its first CO and his crew and begin the trials of ATV-2.A shortage of manpower might very well be one reason why the Akula is being delayed,being used to train more than one set of N-submariners in Russia/Russian waters where such facilities are available,before being formally commissioned into the IN.

Once more,any delays in induction of foreign systems should be examined objectively.The reasons spelt out,whether technical,delays in key systems arriving on time,cost overruns,etc.Official statements/CAG reports should be the most accurate,esp. CAG reports which have in many cases clearly specificed who is to blame.The CAG let's remember is currently responsible for seeing that some of the key the perpetrators of the 2G scam are at the moment guests of the state in Hotel Tihar!

sum · Post by **sum** » 08 Jul 2011 21:39

Another Pakistani ship sailed provocatively close to the aircraft carrier INS Viraat.

We have even Paki surface ships( can understand subs) loitering close to our CBG( of course, not the level of a Amir-khan CBG but still)?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 09 Jul 2011 01:57

This is all the result of our Piss Process with the Pukes.. Record these close incidents and release them... people can all see what sort or Rust Buckets these ships are... It would help every mango Abdul see the piss poor state of the PN...
you know these pigs would use even this for propaganda.
1) run to uncle and aunty asking for more ships and toys because we are == with yindia
2) doctor these pcitures/videos and play to abdul and Ayeesha's a Mark-e-Momin crushing yevil yindoos. cowards are not picking up a gun and fighting and sueing for peace.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jul 2011 04:30

Next time the pakis flash IN, just video tape it and have it broadcast all across the world, and put it up on youtube too!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2011 15:45

A warning shot across the bows and if it does not stop the Paki aggro,sink the pig carrier! It was not that long ago when the INS Delhi similarly warned an Oz Orion that flew dangerouly low over it in a recce photo-ops run ,when it was making its maiden overseas Far Eastern sojourn.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jul 2011 17:02

Nowithstanding my earlier analysis of a "delay" in the Akula arriving,which seems to be for reasons other than the following quotes,as the sub has already undergone her sea trials,the Russian Pres. is going to war with those in the Russian def. industry who are responsible for delays,etc.,affecting the performance of industry as a whole.A dire threat to deal with offenders as was done in Soviet times was made by Medvedev.The warnings from both him and premier Putin indicate that there are problems within the gargantuan Russian def. industry which need drastic mesures to sort out.In the foll. report,allegations fom a former senior scientist who was sacked for Bulava failures has sparked the outburst from Medvedev.

Xcpt:

Russian defense ministry scandal worsens
Published: July 8, 2011

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev chastised Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov after it emerged the submarine manufacturer Sevmash had missed the target on the delivery of a submarine for the Russian navy. UPI

MOSCOW, July 8 (UPI) -- Russia's vast defense industry, a source of foreign exchange revenue even from areas of current conflict such as Libya and Syria, is on what appears to be a collision course with the Ministry of Defense.

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov faced a very public upbraiding from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev after it emerged the submarine manufacturer Sevmash had missed the target on the delivery of a submarine for the Russian navy.

Further angry exchanges followed complaints about the inflated prices demanded by military manufacturers, alleged corruption and malpractices at different levels of the defense manufacturing infrastructure.

Sevmash is the acronym favored by the giant shipyard Severnoye Mashinostroitelnoye Predpriyatie Northern Machine-Building Enterprise based in the White Sea port of Severodvinsk. The company employs about 27,000 people and specializes in building ships, submarines and other military equipment for the Russian navy.

Reports of the delays came to light only after a former key figure in the defense establishment said the submarine order was in trouble and might never be met by the shipyard, Itar-Tass reported.

In May Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned defense manufacturers not to overcharge.

The Russian arms industry is on an aggressive global marketing spree, selling arms and equipment even to countries embroiled in conflict, including Libya and Syria. In Latin America, Russia sold military equipment worth more than $2 billion to Venezuela as it mounted its feud with Colombia in a deal that was backed with soft-term credit and negotiated and signed by Putin.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/201 ... z1Rbn38vx7

One wishes that Indian PMs and D. Mins also upbraided their PSUs and project heads for failures to deliver desi projects on time too!

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 09 Jul 2011 17:17

Rocky and Mayur (NDTV Good Times) are onboard INS Viraat.
the programme is currently airing on NDTV Good Times.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2011 17:25

Russian defense ministry scandal worsens

A state within a state that seems to be sucking everyone clean. Seems to be a problem that is impacting Russia herself.

However, that has nothing to do with India and therefore Indian decisions. "Russia"- today - is an unreliable partner in defcom. Sad to bundle "Russia" in this mess, but that is how it is. India cannot and should not wait for this mess to be cleaned.

IF this story is true, then I really do not see Russia recovering from this mess. Corrupt practices will dilute progress within Russia in a few years to the point that she will not recover (relative to other top players).

I always thought that the break-up of the USSR, inflation, restructuring, etc were more excuses - they do have their place, just that I really do not see anyone actively responding to the mess - if anyone had responded, Russia would not be in this mess.

WRT FGFA, I have been very, very skeptical. This article further supports my thinking. Some corrupt thinker will dilute the situation enough to pose a problem to the FGFA. The potential that can be reached may (will?) not be reached.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2011 17:28

One wishes that Indian PMs and D. Mins also upbraided their PSUs and project heads for failures to deliver desi projects on time too!

True.

However, let us not lump the Indian SciCom/PSU into the Russian category. Seems to me that the Russians are more into corrupt practices, including the inability to even project over 3-4 years in areas like inflation.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 09 Jul 2011 18:58

NRao sir......your link is not working, could you please repost it in the [url] tag?

And you are absolutely right about Russia. Their politicians can run circles around ours when it comes to corrupt practices. Make no mistake the current Russia is nothing like the USSR. All it is now is a Petro-State.....that's all!

I am sad too that it ended up this way....hopefully, we haven't paid any money upfront for the FGFA deal....because I have a feeling that might turn out to be another defense disaster in the making as far as India is concerned.

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Jul 2011 21:13

akimalik wrote:Rocky and Mayur (NDTV Good Times) are onboard INS Viraat.
the programme is currently airing on NDTV Good Times.

Its a repeat programme... this season is done and only repeats airing.

IIRC, this episode is on youtube also.

krishna_kss · Post by **krishna_kss** » 09 Jul 2011 22:06

Russian defense ministry scandal worsens

Good. One more small pressure point on Indian establishment (Polito/Mil/Def Forces) to lay more stress on indigenous R&D and production technology and processes.

Krishna