Indian Naval Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Aug 2011 22:14


Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 04 Aug 2011 23:15

Austin wrote:
Kersi D wrote:So we import the ships and close down MDL, GSL, GRSE etc ???


No , Involve private players and provide them equal opportunity , stream line the management process


YES. Should be a priority

[/quote] and fire people who cant deliver at PSU SY , diversify supply source if there is problem and have a system of reward and penalty for PSU yards.[/quote]

Probably impossible in Indian. This is amajor cause for a lot of our problems

Kersi

KuleshovOleg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Aug 2011 19:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KuleshovOleg » 06 Aug 2011 20:33

Hello He became interested in your site! :) My name is Oleg. Severodvinsk (Russia).
Image

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2011 20:36

welcome to BR, oleg. btw does anyone have a photo of the vik's insignia ? I saw it once 2-3 years ago and never managed to locate it again.


thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby thammu » 06 Aug 2011 21:13

Indigenous aircraft carrier launch this Dec
The construction of India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) at Cochin is expected to be completed in December this year, after which the warship will be launched, Defence Minister AK Antony said Tuesday.
Antony, in a written reply to questions in the Lok Sabha, said the Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) had completed 75 percent of the hull work on the IAC, which is also known as the Air Defence Ship.
‘Indigenous aircraft carrier launch this Dec’
“Regarding the Air Defence Ship being constructed at CSL, 75 percent of hull work has been completed and is expected to be launched in December 2011, after which further works will be undertaken prior to commissioning,” Antony said.
He said the augmentation of infrastructure at CSL was in progress and Indian-made hull quality steel was now available that will reduce the country’s dependence on foreign sources.
‘Indigenous aircraft carrier launch this Dec’ “With the infrastructure and experience, indigenous aircraft carrier-sized ships can be built at CSL. Additionally, Indian-manufactures warship quality steel is now available, which will reduce dependence on foreign countries,” he said.
Declaring India’s intention of having at least two carrier task forces with aircraft carrier warships as the pivot of such battle groups, Antony said the country should be capable of deploying them on two locations soon.
“To maintain effective presence in our area of interest, Indian Navy should be capable of deploying carrier task forces in two geographically separated locations,” he said.
The navy already operates the Centaur-class INS Viraat aircraft carrier. The refit and modernisation works on board the INS Vikramaditya, formerly Russian Navy aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, are progressing in an earnest manner, the minister said.
“Consequent to signing of supplementary agreements in March 2010, the Russian side has increased the manpower and material resources considerably for the (Vikramaditya) project. A majority of the equipment and systems have been installed on board the ship. The delivery of the ship is scheduled in December 2012,” he added.

KuleshovOleg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Aug 2011 19:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KuleshovOleg » 06 Aug 2011 23:13

Rahul M - Logo Vik?.. I do not understand. :?:
Image

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 06 Aug 2011 23:36

thanks a lot Oleg, this is what I was looking for. :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SaiK » 07 Aug 2011 00:05

awesome pic there oleg.. on the paint job still I see it needs work, and obviously I am not sure when the pic was taken.

KuleshovOleg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 06 Aug 2011 19:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby KuleshovOleg » 07 Aug 2011 00:24

:wink:

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3810
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby suryag » 07 Aug 2011 00:43

Duurarkshya saralakshaya - what does it mean ?

ADded later - does it mean security of far lands made easier ?

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manum » 07 Aug 2011 00:48

^^Strike far, Strike Sure

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3810
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby suryag » 07 Aug 2011 00:50

saral is not easy ?

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby manum » 07 Aug 2011 00:52

its not saral its sar+lakshya

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Aug 2011 09:22

The IN/MOD/MDL,GRSE,HSL,etc,etc,clearly know what their long term steel requirements are.It would be so simple to arrange well in advance with leading manufacturers,local and foreign to produce the steel well in time.Are their not future force projections for the IN and other services and critical material requirements can easily be estimated? We have known for years that a second and third batch of P-15s,a large no of P-17s,plus several P-28s were planned/on order,plus at least one carrier built at home! These are huge qtys. and could've been sourced out to several suppliers,spreading the risk.In any case,the inordinate delays by Indian yards cannot be explained merely by lack of HQ steel only.In the case of the P-17s ,it was always known that the IN would require about 8-12 at least.I feel that the complexity of building a stealth frigate at home was grossly udnderestimated by the designers builders ,which is why the call for foreign yards to assist in the construction of the remainder appeared some time ago.

One can only conclude that poor decision making,planning,knee-jerk decisions,like the CWG is responsible,so that legitimate cost-escalation takes place and we end up paying more.The nexus between babudom and defence suppliers needs to be ended ,if curtailed at least.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 07 Aug 2011 09:30

Philip wrote:The IN/MOD/MDL,GRSE,HSL,etc,etc,clearly know what their long term steel requirements are.It would be so simple to arrange well in advance with leading manufacturers,local and foreign to produce the steel well in time.
One can only conclude that poor decision making,planning,knee-jerk decisions,like the CWG is responsible,so that legitimate cost-escalation takes place and we end up paying more.The nexus between babudom and defence suppliers needs to be ended ,if curtailed at least.


No one is ready to take a descision in the system and face vigilance, CVC etc. Everyone plays safe.

Added later:

One good thing that came out of it is the Indian systems and materials are getting into projects. DPSU's sale to yards dosen't involve corruption.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby abhijitm » 07 Aug 2011 15:40

manum wrote:^^Strike far, Strike Sure

I think it means Guard Remote, Guard Home

Vipin_Upadhyay
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 01 May 2008 14:11
Location: Play for country not for the crowd: MSD

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipin_Upadhyay » 07 Aug 2011 16:09

abhijitm wrote:I think it means Guard Remote, Guard Home


In that case it would have been "DoorRakshyam GrihRakshya". (The security of home lies in securing the far)
Not a bad idea to put in upcoming IAC logo :twisted:

I think Suryag is very close to actual meaning --
"Protecting from Far - Sincerely/Honestly!"

Saral definately means Easy or Sincere/Honest depending upon context.

This is also classic example where only English language is not sufficient to grasp full meaning of a Sanskrit line.

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Atri » 09 Aug 2011 09:25

दु:+ रक्षया = दुर्रक्षया (For protection against evil) (दु: means bad, someone who is adharmik and aasurik)
सर + लक्ष्यया = सरलक्षया (to aim (and shoot) accurately)

I think it should be लक्ष्यया since लक्ष्य means target.सरलक्षया refers to a target which is "aimed" (the state of target being locked between the crosshairs) for destruction.

For protection against evil adharmiks, we keep the (evil) target aimed and locked the crosshairs constantly = दुर्रक्षया सरलक्षया

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24154
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 09 Aug 2011 09:33

Hillary's leadership call to India not aimed at Pakistan
The United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's, call during her July visit for India to take up the leadership role in the Asia Pacific region set off a furore in Pakistan. But government sources here say Ms. Clinton's discussions here had nothing to do with Pakistan.

They were aimed in the near term at persuading India to join hands with the U.S. in securing outlying island countries such as Maldives and Mauritius, besides working together in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. In the long term, Washington is aspiring for a closer maritime partnership with the Indian Navy in the South China Sea, the Straits of Malacca and finally the Pacific Ocean.

The reason why Ms. Clinton publicly articulated what had been said to her Indian interlocutors behind closed doors could be because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is still not in acquiescence with the direction contemplated by the Ministry for External Affairs, said other government sources.

The MoD has tended to drag its feet about a U.S. proposal to involve the Indian military in a counter-terrorism grid in its maritime vicinity. It feels such a move could needlessly aggravate Chinese concerns about New Delhi being used by Washington in creating a military balance in the seas in the region. The MoD has also not favoured a joint counter-terrorism task force on the high seas for the same reason.

Officials, while playing down the concerns expressed by Pakistan, invited a closer look at Ms. Clinton's speech on July 20 in Chennai, which led to a spirited response from the Islamabad-Rawalpindi political leadership and security\strategic community. “There is no better place to discuss India's leadership in the region to its east than here in Chennai....India straddling the waters from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean is, with us, a steward of these waterways. We are both deeply invested in shaping the future of the region that they connect.

In all of these areas, India's leadership will help to shape positively the future of the Asia Pacific
,” she had observed.

The accompanying U.S. team was clear in its intention behind Ms. Clinton's exhortation for India to take up a leadership role. India, the State Department team felt, should work with the U.S. and its region's maritime allies to create a military balance with China in the future. They described the Chinese naval expansion as “frightening” and feared that it could reach a stage where Beijing might begin indulging in coercive diplomacy.

The U.S. officials also referred to the “alarming” tendency by China of asserting claims to territory in the maritime rim below some members of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In this context, they sought Indian assistance because the Indian Ocean — “a vital transit ocean” — has emerged as an area of “weakness” for the U.S.

A section of the Indian leadership is amenable to the idea of closely collaborating with the U.S. because maritime security cooperation “suits us.” One of its spin offs would be faster mobilising capacity for the Indian Navy. New Delhi's attempt to extricate its citizens from the recent Arab hotspots of Libya and Egypt was described by other official sources as “pathetic.”

The other section wants India to maintain a strategic distance by not getting too closely drawn in this unfolding game plan. It is open to maintaining a level of interaction that helps get high end sensor technologies of various hues from the U.S. as India has done by purchasing weapon locating radars to maritime surveillance planes from American companies. With the inability to evacuate Indians at a quick enough pace from Libya, plans are also afoot to purchase another Trenton class (the first one has been renamed Vikramaditya {sic} ) troop assault ship as well as consider offers for ships being made by the U.S.-U.K. alliance.

While India considers the right policy mix for this U.S. offer, officials point out that Pakistan, publicly the most offended country by Ms. Clinton's statement, was nowhere in consideration.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 09 Aug 2011 14:43

The IN should acquire either the Mistral class or Juan Carlos class (preferable,as Oz is opting for the latter being more capable and can act as light carriers/ASW carriers too) from Fra. or Spn.

Here are details about the latest Chinese convnetional SSB,a return to the Golf style ballistic missile sub.The report says that the PLAN is doing this because of problems with its SSBNs,but another reason could also be the transfer of such SSBs to Pak to counter the IN's ATV class.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/ ... 10808.aspx

August 8, 2011: China recently revealed the first of a new submarine class, which was seen moving under its own power near Shanghai. The new boat is a Type 43 Qing class SSB (ballistic missile diesel-electric submarine) and is apparently being readied for sea trials. The Qing class boats have an elongated sail, similar to that found in the Russian Golf class boats, which contain vertical silos for ballistic missiles. Russia built 23 of these 2,800 ton diesel-electric boats. Each had three launch tubes in its elongated sail. The Golfs were in service from 1958-1990, and the last of them carried the 16 ton R-21 (SS-N-5) ballistic missile, which had a max range of 1,600 kilometers and carried a single nuclear warhead. North Korea received ten decommissioned Golf class boats in 1993, to be turned into scrap.

China bought the plans for the Golf class SSBs in 1959, and built one. This boat was believed retired, but it was seen restored to service last year, apparently for testing China’s only two sub launched ballistic missiles (the Jl-1 and Jl-2). But the Chinese Golf was probably testing the missile silo design for the new Qings.

China had lots of problems with its JL (Julang) 2 SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile), and the SSBNs that carried them. The 42 ton JL-2 has a range of 8,000 kilometers, and would enable China to aim missiles at any target in the United States from a 094 class SSBN (ballistic missile carrying nuclear subs) cruising off Hawaii or Alaska. Each 094 boat can carry twelve of these missiles, which are naval versions of the existing land based 42 ton DF-31 ICBM.


Apart from or SSBNs of ATV design,there is an urgent need for Brahmos armed AIP SSGs,which could also carry a set of larger TTs,able to fire the future indigenous LR cruise missile Nirbhay,or any other cruise missile,Shkval,etc.,so that we have a second line of conventional AIP subs which can be armed with N-tipped missiles to primarily deal with Pak.At around 3000t in size,these subs would be available at far lesser cost than the ATV SSBNs,of which future versions must carry at least twice the number of missile silos to deal with China.5-6 SSBNs and an equal number of AIP SSGNs,N-capable,would give us an excellent complement and additonal second strike capability.

I also posted recently in the Intl/. thread a report about a Russian "container" module,which could carry missiles/missile launchers and thus be covertly deployed aboard any merchantman.Using such a method,the IN/Indian armed forces coudl deploy part of our missile strike force anywhere along the coastline,aboard merchantmen,etc.,easily transportable with our heavy-lift transports to any theatre/location.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 09 Aug 2011 14:54

Philip wrote:Apart from or SSBNs of ATV design,there is an urgent need for Brahmos armed AIP SSGs,which could also carry a set of larger TTs,able to fire the future indigenous LR cruise missile Nirbhay,or any other cruise missile,Shkval,etc.,so that we have a second line of conventional AIP subs which can be armed with N-tipped missiles to primarily deal with Pak.At around 3000t in size,these subs would be available at far lesser cost than the ATV SSBNs,of which future versions must carry at least twice the number of missile silos to deal with China.5-6 SSBNs and an equal number of AIP SSGNs,N-capable,would give us an excellent complement and additonal second strike capability.


Project 76.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby jaladipc » 09 Aug 2011 18:44

Alert: Chaiwallah says L&T in the process of getting the order to build Amphibious assault ships( ~ 4 in number). Possibly be modified and larger tonnage than Jalashwa. Full details yet to come out on the final role of the ship.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10087
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sum » 09 Aug 2011 21:36

^^ Lungi dance time...where is the icon when you need one!!

( Where does it leave the supposed Mistral acquisition?)

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 09 Aug 2011 22:11

sum, there is no supposed mistral acquisition AFAIK. perhaps you are confusing with the russians ?
IN has a LPD tender in make Indian category, links are in design your own ship thread.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3954
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby hnair » 09 Aug 2011 23:02

Rahul M-saar, there was a news wafting around some three years or so back about mistral and IN. Whatever they choose, I hope it is a through deck design than Trenton style truncated decking (sort of an afterthought for more peaceful forms of aviation than violent).

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17036
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 09 Aug 2011 23:25

but that was unofficial wasn't it ?

Vipin_Upadhyay wrote:
abhijitm wrote:I think it means Guard Remote, Guard Home


In that case it would have been "DoorRakshyam GrihRakshya". (The security of home lies in securing the far)
Not a bad idea to put in upcoming IAC logo :twisted:

I think Suryag is very close to actual meaning --
"Protecting from Far - Sincerely/Honestly!"

Saral definately means Easy or Sincere/Honest depending upon context.

This is also classic example where only English language is not sufficient to grasp full meaning of a Sanskrit line.

err, not quite. saral+akshya does not mean anything.

as someone said it is sar+lakshya. sar is arrow. have you noticed the logo itself ?

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 10 Aug 2011 23:24

UK proposes building future warships with India.

If deal goes through, one of our new pvt sector shipyards could bag contract

With defence ministry shipyards unable to meet the Indian Navy’s growing need for warships, New Delhi had no choice but to look to Russian shipyards. Now, with Britain looking to partner India to cut the UK’s warship building costs, one of India’s new private defence shipyards — which have high-tech facilities but no experience in building large, complex warships — could get the opportunity to build its first line of world-class frigates.

Business Standard has learnt that a cash-strapped UK government has approached New Delhi to jointly design and build a next-generation frigate, designated the Global Combat Ship (GCS). While the UK had originally planned to build this alone (then designated the Type 26 frigate), shrinking defence budgets have forced it to seek international partners. And, India, along with other countries, including Brazil, has been invited into a consortium to design and build the GCS.

The British shipyard that will participate in the GCS project belongs to BAE Systems. The ministry of defence (MoD) in New Delhi will nominate an Indian shipyard. With public sector shipyards unable to deliver even the existing orders on time, South Block has little choice but to turn to one of the three new private defence shipyards — L&T, Pipavav or ABG Shipyard.

“There have been meetings at the government-to-government level. There are continued discussions with the Indian government. There has been clear interest from the Indian Navy. But nobody has made a commitment yet,” says Andrew Gallagher, president, BAE Systems India. The response of the other countries approached by the UK is not known.

Senior MoD officials say, off the record, that no decision is imminent on the British offer. But they admit the offer is attractive, since it would provide a learning opportunity for one of India’s big new private sector shipyards to gain experience in building frigates.

The three private shipyards already have orders for small vessels for the navy and the coast guard, none larger than a few hundred tonnes. A frigate, which typically weighs 5,000-6,500 tonnes and has complex electronic battle management systems, is far more difficult to design and build.

BAE Systems has described to Business Standard how Whitehall envisages the designing and building of the GCS. The countries that eventually form the consortium would join heads to frame broadly common specifications for the warship. Presently, the GCS is planned as a flexi-role frigate. This means each vessel could be optimised for any one of the three traditional frigate roles: anti-submarine, air defence or general-purpose. To cater for these different roles and the different requirements of participating countries, the basic GCS design would have 80 per cent commonality in design and components, with 20 per cent remaining flexible.

While design responsibility would be shared between consortium members, each country would build its own frigates. This would protect jobs in the politically sensitive warship-building industry in the West. In the case of India, it would develop the capabilities of a fledgling shipyard.

“The Indian Navy has significant warship requirements and so, India would be extremely influential in such a partnership…The GCS commonality would generate operational benefits between friendly navies. The additional benefit would be that a user, say the Indian Navy, could logistically support these frigates from ports in friendly foreign countries that operate the same ship,” says Gallagher, making the case for India’s participation.

For the force structure of Britain’s Royal Navy, the GCS, (or Type 26 frigate) is crucial. It survived the UK’s budget cuts of 2008, by paring the Royal Navy’s order for the successful Type 45 destroyer. Last year, the Type 26 frigate survived the ruthless spending cuts imposed in Britain’s Strategic Defence and Security Review. But now, with Whitehall having concluded it cannot go it alone, the partnership of countries like India is essential.

So far, India has entered joint development projects only with Russia and Israel and those in the fields of aeronautics and missiles. But the MoD realises the need to expand warship building to the private sector. Defence shipyards, besides already running to capacity, are plagued by time and cost overruns.

Last week, responding to a question in Parliament, defence minister A K Antony admitted, “The cost escalation in major indigenous warship building projects of the Navy, which are running behind schedule, has already been about 225 per cent for Project-15A (destroyers), about 260 per cent for Project-17 (frigates) and about 157 per cent for Project-28 (anti-submarine corvettes).”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 10 Aug 2011 23:35

From Nightwatch 9 Aug 2011

Vietnam-India: Comment: In late June, Vietnamese and Indian naval senior officers met to discuss maritime security in the South China Sea. During the visit Vietnamese Vice Admiral Hien offered Indian Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Verma, base rights to the port of Nha Trang. Verma accepted in principle.

The terms of the offer have not been reported in detail, but one news service reported the Indians counter-offered the new Brahmos supersonic anti-ship missile to the Vietnamese navy; the Prithvi short-range ballistic missile which can also be used on ships; plus maintenance support to Vietnam's Soviet-supplied naval ships. India already is providing training to the Vietnamese navy.


Subsequently, the INS Airavat, an amphibious landing ship built in Calcutta, made a port call at Nha Trang between 20 and 30 July. In October 2010, Vietnam offered the Indians access to maintenance and repair facilities and invited more port calls. In 2011, Indian Navy ships have made calls at South Chinese Sea ports and Japan almost monthly since March.


For the record. Nha Trang was the base from which a Vietnamese Supreme Commander led a fleet that defeated a Chinese Yuan dynasty fleet in 1288.


Vietnam's offer appears tailored to appeal to the new Indian Naval mantra:


China rejects that the Indian Ocean is Indian. India rejects that the South China Sea is Chinese.


The Indian Chief of Naval Staff's acceptance of the Vietnamese offer sent Chinese national security pundits into spasms of dismissal. One expert wrote that India will never base ships at Nha Trang because it would be too expensive and India lacks the ability to extend naval power east. The Chinese national security expert accused India and Vietnam of bluffing. :((

India: Navy. The Calcutta Telegraph reported on 8 August that the government has asked all ports in the east coast, except Visakhapatnam, to give priority to the Indian Navy because a sharp rise in the number of warships is leading to congestion and slowing down operational turnaround. Visakhapatnam is the main base for the Eastern Naval Command.

Comment: According to the Telegraph report the government has decided to strengthen the Eastern Naval Command in reaction to Chinese meddling in the Indian Ocean, including port construction in Burma and in southern Sri Lanka.


As a result the Navy has raised the rank of senior positions in the east and increased its priority for new ship assignments. In the past 5 years the Command has received 14 ships, including five Rajput-class guided missile destroyers that had been assigned to the Western Naval Command at Mumbai. The new additions include the amphibious assault ship, INS Jalashwa, purchased from the US Navy, which is the second largest ship in the Indian Navy, after the aircraft carrier INS Viraat.

India's new indigenously constructed stealth frigates, under construction at Mumbai, will be assigned to the Eastern Naval command. The Navy is scouting at least three new locations for bases in India and seems to welcome the Vietnamese offer of port facilities.

The Indian Navy is unlikely to base ships in Vietnam, but access to a friendly port will increase the frequency of port calls to the South China Sea as well as to Japan and South Korea. India is determined to contain the Chinese in South Asian oceans and and is taking the challenge to East and Southeast Asian seas. Indian Navy ships will be frequent callers in Vietnamese ports.



Sandy Gordon in his book "India a rising power" says that IN planes (TU-124s) routinely patrol South China Sea from INS Rajali in Chennai since mid 80s.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 10 Aug 2011 23:39

Vipul wrote:UK proposes building future warships with India.

If deal goes through, one of our new pvt sector shipyards could bag contract

With defence ministry shipyards unable to meet the Indian Navy’s growing need for warships, New Delhi had no choice but to look to Russian shipyards. Now, with Britain looking to partner India to cut the UK’s warship building costs, one of India’s new private defence shipyards — which have high-tech facilities but no experience in building large, complex warships — could get the opportunity to build its first line of world-class frigates.

Business Standard has learnt that a cash-strapped UK government has approached New Delhi to jointly design and build a next-generation frigate, designated the Global Combat Ship (GCS). While the UK had originally planned to build this alone (then designated the Type 26 frigate), shrinking defence budgets have forced it to seek international partners. And, India, along with other countries, including Brazil, has been invited into a consortium to design and build the GCS.

The British shipyard that will participate in the GCS project belongs to BAE Systems. The ministry of defence (MoD) in New Delhi will nominate an Indian shipyard. With public sector shipyards unable to deliver even the existing orders on time, South Block has little choice but to turn to one of the three new private defence shipyards — L&T, Pipavav or ABG Shipyard.

“There have been meetings at the government-to-government level. There are continued discussions with the Indian government. There has been clear interest from the Indian Navy. But nobody has made a commitment yet,” says Andrew Gallagher, president, BAE Systems India. The response of the other countries approached by the UK is not known.

Senior MoD officials say, off the record, that no decision is imminent on the British offer. But they admit the offer is attractive, since it would provide a learning opportunity for one of India’s big new private sector shipyards to gain experience in building frigates.

The three private shipyards already have orders for small vessels for the navy and the coast guard, none larger than a few hundred tonnes. A frigate, which typically weighs 5,000-6,500 tonnes and has complex electronic battle management systems, is far more difficult to design and build.

BAE Systems has described to Business Standard how Whitehall envisages the designing and building of the GCS. The countries that eventually form the consortium would join heads to frame broadly common specifications for the warship. Presently, the GCS is planned as a flexi-role frigate. This means each vessel could be optimised for any one of the three traditional frigate roles: anti-submarine, air defence or general-purpose. To cater for these different roles and the different requirements of participating countries, the basic GCS design would have 80 per cent commonality in design and components, with 20 per cent remaining flexible.

While design responsibility would be shared between consortium members, each country would build its own frigates. This would protect jobs in the politically sensitive warship-building industry in the West. In the case of India, it would develop the capabilities of a fledgling shipyard.

“The Indian Navy has significant warship requirements and so, India would be extremely influential in such a partnership…The GCS commonality would generate operational benefits between friendly navies. The additional benefit would be that a user, say the Indian Navy, could logistically support these frigates from ports in friendly foreign countries that operate the same ship,” says Gallagher, making the case for India’s participation.

For the force structure of Britain’s Royal Navy, the GCS, (or Type 26 frigate) is crucial. It survived the UK’s budget cuts of 2008, by paring the Royal Navy’s order for the successful Type 45 destroyer. Last year, the Type 26 frigate survived the ruthless spending cuts imposed in Britain’s Strategic Defence and Security Review. But now, with Whitehall having concluded it cannot go it alone, the partnership of countries like India is essential.

So far, India has entered joint development projects only with Russia and Israel and those in the fields of aeronautics and missiles. But the MoD realises the need to expand warship building to the private sector. Defence shipyards, besides already running to capacity, are plagued by time and cost overruns.

Last week, responding to a question in Parliament, defence minister A K Antony admitted, “The cost escalation in major indigenous warship building projects of the Navy, which are running behind schedule, has already been about 225 per cent for Project-15A (destroyers), about 260 per cent for Project-17 (frigates) and about 157 per cent for Project-28 (anti-submarine corvettes).”


Is this just a carrot-and-stick approach to get MMRCA order to Typhoon ?

K

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 10 Aug 2011 23:44

UK has a Trimaran design and if it is of sound design IN should consider building the Trimaran's with runways since we don't have plans for acquiring VTOL aircraft after Harrier's

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Aug 2011 00:00

Kersi,

This Telegraph story was buried quite deep in the paper!

Maybe they(Nightwatch) have a web crawler with India Navy tag on it?

Navy Priority signal to Eastern Ports

Navy priority signal to eastern ports
SUJAN DUTTA

MT Pavit that ran aground off the Mumbai coast last week. Though the Western Naval Command is the sword arm of the navy, the force wants to boost its fleet in the east. (PTI)

New Delhi, Aug. 8: The government has asked all ports in the east coast barring Visakhapatnam to give priority to the Indian Navy because a sharp rise in the number of warships is leading to congestion and slowing down operational turnaround.

So long, a second to the “sword arm” that is the Western Naval Command, the Eastern Naval Command has now been given additional resources because China figures larger than ever before in the competition for strategic space in the Indian Ocean region.

In May this year, the government upgraded the rank of the chief of staff of the Eastern Naval Command from Rear Admiral to Vice Admiral.

The chief of staff (CoS) reports to the flag officer commanding-in-chief east, currently Vice Admiral Anup Singh. The CoS is Vice Admiral Sunil Lamba and the eastern fleet commander is Rear Admiral Harish Chandra Singh Bisht. :?:

In the last five years alone, the eastern fleet has been reinforced with 14 major warships — including all five Rajput-class guided missile destroyers that were earlier with the western fleet — plus a greater number of smaller vessels such as fast-attack craft.

The Eastern Command now has more than 50 major warships — up from around 30 in 2005 — of a total of 170 that makes up the Indian Navy’s total fleet.

Among the new additions are the INS Jalashwa amphibious vessel with six onboard helicopters (imported from the US) that is the second largest ship in the navy, the Italy-built fleet tanker INS Shakti and the indigenous stealth frigate, the INS Shivalik. A second Shivalik-class frigate, the INS Satpura, that is to be launched later this month in Mumbai is also likely to be assigned to the eastern fleet.

The Eastern Naval Command is headquartered in Visakhapatnam that is also its largest port. But the narrow channel through which ships enter and leave the harbour and the heavy mercantile traffic has made it impossible for authorities to insist that naval warships be given priority there.

The security demands of Vizag are also the highest for the navy in the east coast because the naval dockyards there include its submarine base and the ship building centre where the indigenous nuclear submarine, the INS Arihant, was assembled. A second is in the works.

Not wanting to increase the concentration in Vizag, the navy wants to spread its resources and thin out threat perception along the east coast. It is working on developing a major base in Andhra, which could take 20 years, and is deploying more warships out of Vizag to Calcutta, Paradeep, Tuticorin, Kakinada and Chennai to ensure faster turnaround. Getting additional berths in Calcutta is out of the question because of the Calcutta port’s multiple problems. The navy is now looking at developing additional facilities in Orissa and Andhra.

The navy has proposed operating bases and turnaround facilities in Gangavaram, just north of Vizag, and Krishnapatnam. It has also proposed a major base in Andhra.

The navy is likely to assign the only aircraft carrier in its fleet, the INS Viraat, to the eastern command after the delivery of INS Vikramaditya (erstwhile INS Gorshkov) from Russia
.

The schedule is delayed by two years and it is now likely to be delivered only in 2013.

The bolstering of the eastern fleet is partly propelled by China’s increasing footprint. China has acquired or is developing bases in Myanmar and is building a port in Hambantota, on the southern tip of Sri Lanka.

Besides, the Indian Navy has decided that China’s cat-and-mouse games with the US Navy in the South China Sea and its prolonged deployment in counter-piracy patrols off the east coast of Africa is a sign not only of newly acquired maritime capabilities but also of Beijing’s willingness to exhibit a new aggressiveness.



Wow so Eastern command will have ~1/3 of total fleet.

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Leo.Davidson » 11 Aug 2011 01:59



Baloney. By far, Britain has better shipbuilding technology & expertise than INDIA. It used to take 10+ years for GRSE to build even small ships and I hope by now they've made some marginal improvements. Likewise all of the other goverment shipyards are also plagued with inefficiencies, sparse equipment/materials and huge backlogs. The private shipbuilders haven't had a change to prove their mettle.

And Britain with their huge shipbuilding workforce will outsource their shipbuilding (or atleast modules) to INDIA. They weren't willing to give us their junk Harrier after it was stripped off of sensitive equipment; And now they want to share their technology with us.

I hope I live to see it in this lifetime. But I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Aug 2011 02:50

LD,

Perhaps you should do yourself a favor and learn to read articles. BEFORE you post things that are very well known and understood on this forum.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2459
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 11 Aug 2011 07:25

Kersi D wrote:UK proposes building future warships with India.

Interesting developments while Shivalik was step forward we still are lagging when it comes automation, propulsion and combat management system (i.e RSN's Formidable class). However i think the big problem will be that any design would require modification to carry Brahmos+Barak-8, unless of course latter is modified to launch from Sylver VLS system.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2011 10:04

the P17A contract was destined to go for a european country. the frontrunner was perceived as DCN of france, but looks like we cannot discount BAE systems and Italy , Spain too.

the cost of going for FREMM derivative as P17A would likely be cheaper than a greenfield Type26 though because france is already building a lot of FREMM ships.

should not be a problem fitting the brahmos and barak8 systems into any of these...once the calculations are done for weight and electrical/ventilation systems at design stage itself.

we need to put the brahmos in rajput style inclined tubes amidships in a hollow area shielded by stealth walls like some chinese and most western ships do. free up the foredeck for more barak8 and avoid the one deck level higher area of brahmos.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby bmallick » 11 Aug 2011 12:09

Singha wrote:we need to put the brahmos in rajput style inclined tubes amidships in a hollow area shielded by stealth walls like some chinese and most western ships do. free up the foredeck for more barak8 and avoid the one deck level higher area of brahmos.


Thats a good idea. However, that would mean that the Brahmos missiles sit relatively higher up compared to a VLS system. 16 missiles = 48 tons, which is nothing compared to the total weight of the ship, thus should not effect the top weight of the ship. However the angled mid deck missiles would mean that ships in formation would have to have some safe distance between them, lest an inclined missile launch from ship 1 hits the top structure of ship 2.

Anyway, design of most of IN capital ships has the raised foredeck for the SAM's & RBU's. I do not think that raised foredeck requirement if only because of Brahmos. Of course it should not be difficult to have the SAM VLS at the main deck level it self. Also the RBU's can also be based at the main deck level, they anyway mostly fire at an elevated angle. Anyway, if having VLS for brahmos is a must, then maybe we can use the raised sections, aft of the funnel, just before hangar to house them. We anyway are having the second Barak-8 launcher sets there.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 11 Aug 2011 12:25

we can try for 32 barak8 on P17A , up from 24 shtil on P17.
32 barak8 and 32 barak1 should be a decent combo for a multi-purpose FFG.

the P15B needs some careful thought around role and design - if we want it simply as incremental improvement on the past P15A or a clean break like the P17A is expected to be from P17.

out and out AAW intimidation KDX3/DDG51/Type45 style or a more "balanced" ship that has significant land attack and ASW capability (if we skip ASW capability, like the PLAN did on many capital ships, only the heli landing deck is needed and the hanger area can be occupied by a fullsize aft SAM/ASM/Nirbhay array).

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby bmallick » 11 Aug 2011 13:18

Singha wrote:we can try for 32 barak8 on P17A , up from 24 shtil on P17.
32 barak8 and 32 barak1 should be a decent combo for a multi-purpose FFG.

the P15B needs some careful thought around role and design - if we want it simply as incremental improvement on the past P15A or a clean break like the P17A is expected to be from P17.

out and out AAW intimidation KDX3/DDG51/Type45 style or a more "balanced" ship that has significant land attack and ASW capability (if we skip ASW capability, like the PLAN did on many capital ships, only the heli landing deck is needed and the hanger area can be occupied by a fullsize aft SAM/ASM/Nirbhay array).


Agree to all.

If we go for a out and out AAW vessel, then a 7000-8000 ton vessel would definitely serve the purpose. People need not be afraid that how would we protect this vessel against other vessels & subs. But such a AAW vessel would not be providing AAW screen in empty ocean of no interest. But would be part of a fleet, which it would protecting with its AAW screen. Thus mutual support & screens would be the norm.

However if we go for a more balanced approach, then the size of the vessel would increase in trying to put in all the required sensors. Also cost definitely would be higher. In such a scenario, I feel we would be better served by a 8000-10000 ton flattop. It would have a hanger for 4-6 helicopter. Enough real estate to house big radars, 8-16 Brahmos, 48-64 Barak8, 32 Barak-1, 8 Anti-Sub Klub, 16-24 Nirbhays. But then I think we should call it a cruiser rather than a destroyer, more for psy-ops reasons :-).

However, maybe it would be more prudent to go for maybe semi-specialized 6000 ton vessels with variants. The reason being ships seldom go out all alone like a lone ranger in the wild west. They move in squadrons with mutual support & screening. AAW variant, ASW & Land attack variant. Each having 8 Brahmos & 32 Barak-1. AAW having 64 Barak-8, ASW having 24 Barak-8 & 8 Anti-Sub Klub & 4-6 HWT, Land Attack having 24 Barak-8 & 24 Nirbhays. The idea is that the fore deck would house the 8 brahmos & 24 Barak-8. The aft deck would house the extra 40 Barak-8 for AAW & 24 Nirbhays for the AAW & Land Attack variant. These would be evenly distributed on either side of a single Helicopter hangar. The ASW which does not carry these extra weapons would have hangar for 2 helicopters.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests