Indian Naval Discussion

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Nov 2011 12:30

I have said this before: An MKI with a Brahmos and possibly EFTs is nowhere close to providing the kind of deterrent that a Tu-22 can.

a) The MKI when loaded down even with one Brahmos will probly be hardpressed to get a shot at any CBG. Remember, a CBG will have a decent bubble of protection, and to get enough missile numbers to make some difference, many MKI will be needed. Their operation is decidedly impeded by inability to carry more than one missile, and the probability that even said one missile will load the bird down considerably (probly means subsonic ingress and v.poor maneuvering). Perhaps airlaunched Klub (Calibre?) is a better fit for MKIs in anti shipping role against CBGs.

b) A missile like Nirbhay cannot be used for anti carrier ops too effectively mainly because it is too slow. Probably will be detected and shot down. If it can catch the carrier in the first place since the latter is a moving target. Of course, it would make an effective LACM esp. when used in numbers to saturate air defences.

c) Using MKIs for strategic roles means INdia's strategy is effectively limited to its own backyard - it cannot really take the game to China. For e.g. an attack on China's rich east/south coast is not possible with MKI; otoh, Backfires change this picture completely - all of a sudden even a strike on Chengdu or Hainan cannot be ruled out.

d) Again, for extra long trips the MKI will be handicapped due to fatigue as the cockpit layout is not designed for such trips - albeit pilots seemed to have practiced such flights.

The above deficiencies are remedied by a true supersonic bomber, which could carry a load of 6 Brahmos if needed, and do a round trip of ~ 8000km. Go in quick and low, come out high and fast.

Yes, it would be an expensive bird to maintain, but the capability seems worth it. .

CM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Nov 2011 13:05

Neither is the Backfire or Blackjack in production , No one other then BK claims that we were planning for Blackjack provided we even get it which is to say Russia is ready to export , they really have a small fleet of Blackjack used as strategic bomber and not anti-naval role. Granted it would be NICE to operate a Blackjack or Backfire much like it would be NICE to have a B-2 or B-1B.

From a operational or logistics pov operating a small fleet of refurbished bomber will be a big PITA.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 18 Nov 2011 13:18

Austin sir

how about India buying the reserve mothballed backfires of RuAf And set up a small spare part production unit do you think this a good idea

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2011 13:20

Rahul M wrote: as I keep repeating, china has at best marginal lead over IN, if that. there is no way in hell that would become an insurmountable lead by 2020.

Marginal?
How is 60 subs against 20 subs marginal(Ignoring PN subs)

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2011 13:26

Austin wrote:Neither is the Backfire or Blackjack in production , No one other then BK claims that we were planning for Blackjack provided we even get it which is to say Russia is ready to export , they really have a small fleet of Blackjack used as strategic bomber and not anti-naval role. Granted it would be NICE to operate a Blackjack or Backfire much like it would be NICE to have a B-2 or B-1B.

From a operational or logistics pov operating a small fleet of refurbished bomber will be a big PITA.

Neither of them is in production but so aren't Migs and Mirages. Spares will be an issue but if enough money is pumped in I don't think it will continue to be so.

Sir, it is not just Nice to have them- It is necessary. If it comes there Viraat is the Nicest thing that IN has that is of near zero operational significance.

We wont get B-1 or B-2. We may not get Tu-160 either. But we sure can get some T-22's and the Fullbacks. And we need them.

koti · Post by **koti** » 18 Nov 2011 13:31

Using MKIs for strategic roles means INdia's strategy is effectively limited to its own backyard - it cannot really take the game to China. For e.g. an attack on China's rich east/south coast is not possible with MKI; otoh, Backfires change this picture completely - all of a sudden even a strike on Chengdu or Hainan cannot be ruled out.

Thats the IAF's job, if it employs planes for that.

Now,
We use Jaguar for Martime Strike role. Does any one suggest a replacement for it there?
Which platform should take up that role?(I don't want to compare SSG with A/c)

jai · Post by **jai** » 18 Nov 2011 14:03

[quote="Austin"]Neither is the Backfire or Blackjack in production , No one other then BK claims that we were planning for Blackjack provided we even get it which is to say Russia is ready to export , they really have a small fleet of Blackjack used as strategic bomber and not anti-naval role. Granted it would be NICE to operate a Blackjack or Backfire much like it would be NICE to have a B-2 or B-1B.

From a operational or logistics pov operating a small fleet of refurbished bomber will be a big PITA.[/quote

Not true. TU 160 is in limited production with the Russian af getting 2 - 3 new birds a year, and upgrading all their older birds as well . Question is if they will give us these birds and if yes at what costs. I think IN / IAF would greatly benefit from these birds as missile launchers for both anti surface and anti shipping roles.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2011 14:23

^^^

Rahul M,

Non existant in the IOR. But not in the western pacific basin. The PLAN can field 80 + frigates and destroyers and 50 + subs. The Vietnamese can field a fraction IIRC, less then 1/10th of the PLAN force. The Indian navy cannot stand up to the PLAN in that region whether alone or in conjunction with the Vietnamese.

Also dont for a moment believe that the TSP will allow the Indian nation the freedom to deal with the PRC on a one on one basis.

South China sea an area of 'significant concern': Navy chief

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 18 Nov 2011 17:14

Milestone for Scorpene submarine construction

The construction of six submarines under the Scorpene project, marred by constant delays and time overruns, has achieved a milestone with the Mumbai-based Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL) successfully integrating the weapons of the system with the main structure of the underwater vessel.

“At the end of the last month, we successfully integrated the torpedo launchers with the submarine’s main structure. It is an achievement for us, as we have not done such a construction so far within the country,” said MDL’s chairman and managing director Vice Admiral (retd) HS Malhi here. “It is an achievement for the shipyard. “This integration takes nearly a couple of weeks, but with our precision work we could do it in two days,” Malhi added.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 18 Nov 2011 17:46

koti wrote:
Austin wrote:Neither is the Backfire or Blackjack in production

From a operational or logistics pov operating a small fleet of refurbished bomber will be a big PITA.
Neither of them is in production

Blackjacks are still in production. RuAF plans to get about 20 of them this decade. Depends on the funding.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2011 18:02

Pratyush ji, this is precisely why I end up repeating what I did. those numbers are incredibly inflated, the real strength is much lower.
I strongly encourage people to see beyond the bland orbats and check what those numbers represent. mostly, you will find those are rust buckets that are not sea worthy, let alone battle worthy.

this is the actual situation

Code: Select all

IN
Carrier		1
Destroyer	8
Frigate		11 (2 of which ~ destroyer)
Crvt/Msl Boat	24
SSK		14
SSN		1
 		
PLAN
Destroyer	16 (5 ~ frigate)
Frigate		20 (14 ~ corvette/missile boat)
SSK		27-33
SSN		5 (3 reportedly unusable)

p.s I didn't get why we should be worried about whether we can stand in the Indo-china sea. PLAN can't exactly stand up to IN in IOR or BoB either.
nor are their neighbours and uncle sam anymore willing to give them a free pass to operate in our backyard than pakis are going to give us.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Nov 2011 19:36

Russia has enough Backfires mothballed to equip at least two sqds. for the IN/India.However,they require deep modernisation with respect to avionics,commns. eqpt. and sensors.Their role if acquired would primarily be to carry part of our N-deterrent,as long range strategic bombers which can bomb any part of China,using stand-off missiles for better survival and return without refuelling .Allied to this role would be the role of destroying enemy naval task forces,bombing enemy land targets such as naval bases with conventional stand-off missiles,and enemy task forces trying to enter the IOR or even in the Indo-China Sea and contingent Pacific waters.The Backfires could be escorted as well by SU-30MKIs and Super Flankers when in service,later on even by the FGFA.

They would be very formidable strike weapons given their speed and range.If the IAF also acquire the SU-34,the two aircraft would give the IAF and IN significant strike capability against China ,to be able to destroy at long range vital infrastructure like the railway to Tibet,Karakorum Highway and new road/rail link being built by the PRC and other PRC bases,etc. in Tibet.The naval Backfires would be able to sanitise the IOR and Indo-Cina Sea as well,with fighter support from the aircraft based in the A&N Command.The greatest PRC challenge to the IN will however come from China's large sub fleet of the PLAN,which will possess at least 60 new subs by 2020,nuclear and conventional some with AIP (Stirling engine).Keeping them from entering the IOR will require continuous operations of Indian subs,surface ships and LRMP aircraft from Vietnamese bases,supported from the ANC.One must remember that the PLAN possesses an anti-carrier BM with a range of 1500km+,reported to be in service by US sources.Therefore,our escort DDGHs and even a few CBGs should possess a naval SAM that has ABM capability just like the US's SM-3s.Whether the Barak-8 will be able to perform this task is a moot point,but its development should be carried further for the same.

The urgent requiremen of the IN is augmenting the sub fleet and seriously the IN/MOD should trake a good look at the U-boats that Greece can't pay for.They could quickly augment and replace the '80s era U-209s that we have.Inducting them would be easier than acquiring a whole new type 5 years later.Leasing a couple more Akulas from Russia is also neccessary,so that we maintain the qualitative nuclear-boat edge over the PLAN and PN.Our ATVs will be SSBNs primarily,hiding in the IOR and will not be able to patrol the Indo-China Sea and Pacific waters.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Nov 2011 21:24

newbie question. In what way Su-34 is better than Rambha? I couldn't find it in general comparison.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 18 Nov 2011 21:30

GoI warns 2 ships about attack by china in south china sea

what is this now?
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/c ... /216451?hp

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 21:33

although the payload and range look about the same as MKI, with lower top speed, the main diffs seem to be
[1] Leninets OKB-designed B004 radar...a powerful set optimized for the ground attack role
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Jane ... ation.html

[2] The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck. Much of the design work went into crew comfort. The two crew members sit side by side in a large cabin, with the pilot-commander to the left and navigator/operator of weapons to the right in NPP Zvezda K-36dm ejection seats. An advantage of the side by side cockpit is that duplicate instruments are not required for each pilot. As long missions require comfort, it has pressurisation that it allows to operate up to 10,000 metres (32,800 ft) without oxygen masks, which are available for emergencies and combat situations.[22] The crew members have room to stand and move about the cabin during long missions.[23][24] The space between the seats allows them to lie down in the corridor, if necessary.[22] A small toilet and a galley are located behind the crew seats.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 21:36

notwithstanding its crew comfort I feel the Su34 is neither here (as a fighter) nor there (as a bomber) due to being limited to carrying upto KH59 size in bulk and maybe a single Yakhont if desired. unlike a "true" bomber of the Tu160 type it neither has the unrefuelled range nor the massive internal bombload/rotary ALCM launcher for heavier meat like KH555/KH55 types...

perhaps that is why Su34 was never persisted with and Russia spent lot of effort in re-acquiring every remaining Tu160 left behind in Ukraine hands and putting them into service in the famous "Engels AFB" in Saratov. Rus also retains the Tu95 bomber in considerable number as release vehicles for ALCMs...some are co-located with the Tu160 in Engels....again massive range and healthy payload though not the speed and badass attitude of the blackjack.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2011 22:03

never persisted with ? but it's in production.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Nov 2011 22:27

in token numbers (18) for a tactical a/c sire and compared to the old Su24 numbers, quite negligible. if they had serious intent and the cash would have been a MRCA sized order as I believe all their su24 and mig27 are gone, leaving the Frogfoot at low end and nothing above for a2g.

prolly just want to cheaply beat up chechen/dagestani rebels.

apparently Rus is working on L175V / KS418 high power jammer pod similar to the ALQ99 pods on Prowler, for a jammer version of the Su34.....perhaps it intends to devote some new Su34 to this role.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 19 Nov 2011 05:31

R&DE to develop sonar domes for naval warships

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Nov 2011 07:13

Cain Marko wrote:I have said this before: An MKI with a Brahmos and possibly EFTs is nowhere close to providing the kind of deterrent that a Tu-22 can.

a) The MKI when loaded down even with one Brahmos will probly be hardpressed to get a shot at any CBG. Remember, a CBG will have a decent bubble of protection, and to get enough missile numbers to make some difference, many MKI will be needed. Their operation is decidedly impeded by inability to carry more than one missile, and the probability that even said one missile will load the bird down considerably (probly means subsonic ingress and v.poor maneuvering). Perhaps airlaunched Klub (Calibre?) is a better fit for MKIs in anti shipping role against CBGs.

b) A missile like Nirbhay cannot be used for anti carrier ops too effectively mainly because it is too slow. Probably will be detected and shot down. If it can catch the carrier in the first place since the latter is a moving target. Of course, it would make an effective LACM esp. when used in numbers to saturate air defences.

...
CM

To attack a CBG (that is within MKI range from land bases), it would take a large strike package of strike configured MKIs and supported by Air Defense, ECM/SEAD configured MKIs, and decoys. Also, additional support from AAR, AEWs, MRPAs, FFG/DDG, and submarines would be required. For a guaranteed successful mission, at the minimum, IMO, a strike package would need to be 36 x MKIs organized into 3 sub-strike packages.

12 x Strike MKI -> each armed with 1 x Brahmos and 2 x Kh-59, plus 2 BVR-AAM and 2 SR-AAM
12 x Air Defense MKI -> each armed with 8 x BVR-AAM and 2 x SR-AAM
6 x ECM/SEAD MKI -> each armed with 2 x ECM/Jamming pods, 4 x ARM, 2 x BVR-AAM, 2 x SR-AAM
6 x MKI Decoys -> each armed with 6 x air-launched decoys, 2 x BVR-AAM, 2 x SR-AAM

The above would be divided into 3 x strike packages, each sqdn package consisting of 12 x MKIs:

4 x Strike MKI -> total 4 x Brahmos + 8 x Kh-59 + 8 x BVR-AAM + 8 x WVR-AAM
4 x AD MKI -> total 32 x BVR-AAM + 8 x WVR-AAM
2 x ECM/SEAD MKI -> total 4 x ECM/Jamming pods + 8 x ARM + 4 x BVR-AAM + 4 x WVR-AAM
2 x MKI Decoys -> total 12 x air-launched decoys + 4 x BVR-AAM + 4 x SR-AAM

Totals (all 3 x packages) coming in waves from different directions and intervals:

12 x Strike MKI -> 12 x Brahmos and 24 x Kh-59, plus 24 x BVR-AAM and 24 x SR-AAM
12 x Air Defense MKI -> 96 x BVR-AAM and 24 x SR-AAM
6 x ECM/SEAD MKI -> 12 x ECM/Jamming pods, 24 x ARM, 12 x BVR-AAM, 12 x SR-AAM
6 x MKI Decoys -> 36 x air-launched decoys, 12 x BVR-AAM, 12 x SR-AAM

That should more than overwhelm one CBG ... in a Tom Clancy novel way

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2011 07:29

if we are generous the CVN can at best put 12 x F-18 into the fray (4 on CAP, 4 on 5-min alert status, 4 parked right behind them(10 min)) if attacker plays cards right....the F-18s will need to climb and reach a position 200km away to defend against brahmos shooters releasing @ 250km out from CVN.

best thing is take out the couple of Aegis ships or force them to shut radar with a good quality long range ARM, fired in waves....or better torpedo them.

once that is done, take out the F-18s on CAP, target the E2 with a LRAAM snipe and do not let the climbing F-18s get to position, press fwd and engage.....and the 2nd wave of linebackers releases the running backs in the form of brahmos and kh59s.

ofcourse far better to let 12 x Blackjacks do the linebacker thing behind a frontal wave of MKIs and decoys. 72 brahmos heading in your general direction from multiple axis is something no ship or CBG on mother earth can cope with.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Nov 2011 09:03

As usual Singha Garu thinks of grand scales, 12 blackjacks to follow a massive MKI package - Good lawd, at least leave something for the sharks.

Srai, yes, for an MKI to manage PLAN CBG, you are looking at 36-40 bird package - logistically challenging, prep would take time and CBG would have to be tracked continuously in that time.

Let us say, an IN AEW/P8 gets a contact and identifies it as a hostile CBG even 1500-2000km from India's coast, now MKIs will need multiple AAR assets to support the mission. So things get even more complex. Doable, but doubtful

Otoh, if they had a sqd of Backfires at hand, a quick call and 2-3 beasts loaded with 12 Brahmos + 12 KH-31/59s can get moving rather quickly. Perhaps meet an escort package of MKI somewhere mid course. Within a v.short time (hours/minutes), said party can be airborne and the CBG intercepted.

At 2000km from coastline, the backfire can easily do a Hi-lo-lo and be supersonic in the last phase since.

Of course, I speak of Backfires, a blackjack would be awesome - but not available as yet (possible though if India tries hard enough - loosens the purse strings a bit further i s'pose). The Roosies will surely take an arm and a leg, but just a token number of these birds would be seriously lethal (45K payload and 12500km range

). Perhaps a bit much for just China

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Nov 2011 09:10

Also, for the MKI, while a Brahmos is most suitable in the event of hunting escorts, drifters etc, it would be hard for the bird to be truly effective vs. CBG. A few Kloobs (the ones which go supersonic at the last moment) otoh, are much lighter and imho would make the MKI more lethal in such a scenario. A single MKI could potentially carry 3 Klubs.

This would enable 4 MKI to carry the equivalent of 12 (brahmos carrying birds).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2011 09:14

USSR had this plan of "multi regiment" backfire attacks on CVBG. by regiment they mean squadron and perhaps each bomber sqdn had 12. so 2 x 12 = 24 backfires could likely release 3 ASMs each and head for home....if we can kit the MKI up with 3 Klubs and a more stealthy subsonic LR_ASM with a heavy warhead, the Klubs will likely cause sufficient mayhem that the 2nd wave of subsonics will drop by later to finish up the table.

and the idea soln exists - a mixed load of 3M54E1 subsonic klub and 3M54E supersonic varant. mashallah a good one-two good_cop-bad_cop tag team! KH59MK2 is an option as well, albeit not as cool looking.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Nov 2011 09:45

They must've been older Tu-22s? Or were they carrying that fat 6000kg mijjile - KH-22 (but AFAIK that was mainly for land attacks/newkiller)? IIRC, by mid/late 80s, the M3s could easily carry about 6 Kh-15s in rotary launchers apart from some goodies underwing. IIRC, it had a pretty decent EW set up as well - powerful jammers, and even a rear facing cannon with radar and TV camera. If the bird could get close enough - within 300km of CBG, it'd let loose a salvo of 6 Kh-15s (capable of M5 but no cruising at low level) and zip out el pronto.

Can't imagine what 12 such backfires would do - a saturation attack of 144 almost hypersonic, albeit high flying missiles - Scheiße! No wonder the Khanate prefered the tomcat with the massive AWG-9 radar and phoenix mijjile - no other option. can't imagine shornets making any difference - not then, not now.

Very interesting response to US CBGs - cheaper, versatile and v.quick. Apart from a plethora of subs/cruisers that could carry another behemoth - the Granit.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Nov 2011 10:17

Singha wrote:in token numbers (18) for a tactical a/c sire and compared to the old Su24 numbers, quite negligible. if they had serious intent and the cash would have been a MRCA sized order as I believe all their su24 and mig27 are gone, leaving the Frogfoot at low end and nothing above for a2g.

Ths Su-34 order is almost MMRCA size , the plan is to acquire 120 Su-34 by 2020 as declared by the Air Chief at MAKS Russian air forces will acquire 120 Su-34 bombers , Parallel they will modernise the fleet of Su-24 to M2 standard , which is quite a good upgrade. The new book I have "Russian Air Force New Edition" by Yefim Gordon has quite good details on both types.

Su-34 is just a tactical bomber which carries the legacy of Su-24 , it main task is to quickly go in the battlefield and soften key targets before making way for the more heavier but much slower (logistically) Tu-22M3 shows up. Apparently 1-2 Su-34 took part in Georgia Campaign for bombing/EW role.

This video on Su-34 has a small footage of pilots getting up and stretching between the two side by side seats , now for long range mission it would be welcome relief , if you could get up and stretch even for few minutes , I have read that between the two seats the pilots can also lay down , as a tactical bomber its more pilot friendly. Roomy as they are but a flanker cockpit to stay put for 8 hours would be a pita. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXauR3lgg40

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Nov 2011 21:18

Austin,the SU-34 then is reminiscent in part of the old "pathfinder" sqds. of the RAF,lighting up targets for th heavy bombers behind.This is a clever tactic,to use the SU-34s to take out the SAM defences of the target area and allow the heavy bombers to follow up in style,especially if armed with stand-off missiles.The IAF should seriously look at qcuiring at least two dedciated sqds. of SU-34s.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 21 Nov 2011 21:52

Ex R&AW chief Vikram Sood is arguing for long range bombers for the IAF - Keep the flag flying

Article isn't very well written given the high standards of his writings normally. But it can be overlooked considering his specialty is elsewhere.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Nov 2011 22:01

I suspect the 2-seat FGFA will kind of specialize in long loiter missions of the EW/SEAD/DEAD variety using its stealthy and high ceiling to full advantage.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 21 Nov 2011 22:35

karan_mc wrote:Milestone for Scorpene submarine construction

“At the end of the last month, we successfully integrated the torpedo launchers with the submarine’s main structure. It is an achievement for us, as we have not done such a construction so far within the country,” said MDL’s chairman and managing director Vice Admiral (retd) HS Malhi here. “It is an achievement for the shipyard. “This integration takes nearly a couple of weeks, but with our precision work we could do it in two days,” Malhi added.

Did we not put torpedo tubes on T 209, at MDL ?

K

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2011 07:20

Tx Marut for that very insightful post.It indicates that there is a growing consensus in the strategicc community that the IAF/IN need a strategic bomber.BR has been saying this for at least 5-7 years now,as we havd been warning about China long before the Ar.Prdsh. "Chinese takeaway" intention was announced by the PRC.

Here is a report from Russia,to get 10 new diesel subs by 2020,one per year,mostly of a new Kilo 636.3 class upgrade,which might be an interim solution to our sub obsolescence woes.We culd acquire a few new Kilo + Brahmos subs to fill the gap,acquiring upgraded,improved subs of a type we already operate ,allowing us to pension off the oldest of the kilo class,until the parameters and decision on line 2 is made.Incidentally,Vietnam has ordered 6 Kilo 636s,whose submariners reportedly will be assisted in training by the IN.

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111122/168916712.html

Russian Navy to receive 10 diesel submarines by 2020

The Project 636 vessels, crewed by 52 submariners, have an underwater speed of 20 knots, a cruising range of 400 miles with the ability to patrol for 45 days. They are armed with 18 torpedoes and eight surface-to-air missiles.

The spokesman said the improved Kilo class submarines will feature advanced “stealth” technology, extended combat range and ability to strike land, surface and underwater targets.

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 22 Nov 2011 09:48

Barak 8 / MR-SAM Test Program to Begin in Early 2012

Four additional Kolkata class destroyers (Project15B) will be equipped with an extended range version of the missile (ER-SAM) capable of intercepting targets at a range of 100 km. These destroyers will also carry the Brahmos II supersonic and new Nirbhany subsonic cruise missiles with offensive reach of 1,000 km.

Is this a known detail or have things moved foward on the Nirbhay front?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Nov 2011 09:54

They must also integrate Shaurya MRBM ( 8 - 10 ) armed with Nuclear Weapons on P-15B , it would have a strike radius of ~ 800 km and would provide detterent from surface ships , couple of Nirbhay should be nuclear armed too.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Nov 2011 14:48

Will a global investor enhance Pipavav Defence’s fortunes?

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 22 Nov 2011 21:24

Vikramaditya

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 22 Nov 2011 21:26

Goa based training facility

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Nov 2011 22:40

SNaik wrote:Vikramaditya

The baby is coming together...

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 22 Nov 2011 23:33

Pratyush wrote:Will a global investor enhance Pipavav Defence’s fortunes?

A Valuation of Rs 9,000 Crores even before delivering the first piece of equipment?

Nikhil Gandhi has hit pay dirt.

venku_Raj · Post by **venku_Raj** » 23 Nov 2011 09:13

Defence Ministry drafts policy on JVs for warship manufacture

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 23 Nov 2011 09:27

Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company Ltd has informed BSE regarding "Issue of Equity Shares to International Strategic Investor on Preferential Basis"

"Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company Limited ("the Company") successfully delivered "The Golden Suek", one no. 74,500 DWT Panamax Bulk Carrier to GOLDEN SAPPHIRE INC nominated by GOLDEN OCEAN GROUP LTD., a Company headquartered in Norway.

This is the largest dry bulk carrier ever built in India.

So they are delivering. Question is how difficult would it be for them to build vessels of similar size for the Navy