Indian Naval Discussion

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 09 Aug 2012 00:25

Katare, expensive, not expansive

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 09 Aug 2012 00:26

A first: US allowed to check Indian warship

{Slightly misleading headline}

But instead of allowing the US "Golden Sentry" team to board and examine the equipment, the Indian Navy removed the equipment from the warship ' also imported from the US ' and asked the inspectors from Pentagon to check them at a different location.
The navy is still queasy and uncomfortable about allowing foreign inspectors to check its platforms. But it was complying with the provisions of an End-User Monitoring Agreement that India standardised with the US in 2009.
Asked about the inspection, an Indian defence ministry source said: "This is really a matter for the navy and it is not up to us. We are not aware of it.":?: An Indian navy source said: "We are complying with what was agreed between governments," but he declined to call the inspection "intrusive".

The inspection took place in late 2011. Since then, the Indian Navy has refitted the INS Jalashva ' formerly the USS Trenton. Much of the new electronic equipment such as navigational aids have been manufactured in India's own defence public sector undertakings like Bharat Electronics Limited.
The equipment the US inspectors asked to check were night-vision devices used by the INS Jalashva landing platform dock and its six onboard UH-3H Seaking maritime utility transport helicopters.It is understood that the devices were removed from the ship and the helicopters and taken to an airfield/helipad where the inspection was carried out.

Military equipment, such as the INS Jalashva, purchased through a government-to-government foreign military sales programme are subject to inspections under the Pentagon's "Golden Sentry" programme that dispatches "Tiger Teams" to do the job.
Direct commercial sales of military hardware by US-based companies to India are subject to inspections under a programme called "Blue Lantern".

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Aug 2012 01:22

narmad wrote:A first: US allowed to check Indian warship

Already posted on previous page and discussed

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Aug 2012 01:24

^^ As navy has made its queasiness known, I'd personally love Sikorsky loses to NH 90 and IN demands all US equipment on NH 90 be replaced with our own or third party. Just would love to see this EULA EUMA $h!t being blamed for that.

Though there is small chance of that happening.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Aug 2012 02:05

Katare sir projection of power and achieving air superiority (not just air defense) are one of the primary objectives of the USN carrier task force; hence the need for gigantic carriers with a fixed wing heavy AC compliment of 50-60+ . If you have so many aircraft on board and just one strip to launch and receive them then it's obvious you need an assisted take off mechanism to be able to ensure that each AC can lift as much payload in shortest possible time. Not many countries in the world share great Unkil's burden of bringing democracy to the third world

so they don't require as big carriers and number of ACs as the former,also modern jet engine powered AC have enough juice in them to take off from a ski jump with enough stores to defend the task force so CAT becomes redundant to an extent for AD missions. Operational costs of a carrier with a huge AC compliment are huge in case of RN, RuN or IN if you have a typical compliment of 20-30 AC per carrier and you don't harbour ambitious goals of projecting air power anywhere in the globe but only employ them for defending the task force you don't need a CAT.

Imho use of a big Catapult system has become exclusive to Unkil because it is simply not required by others who don't envisage similar role for their navies.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 09 Aug 2012 02:47

Using steam as a power source.

From a maintanence point of view steam power is a dream
however from an economical point of view it is wasteful and expensive.
from a footprint size and weight point of view steam is excellent, nearly as good as a gas turbine.

Coming to a naval vessel if the size of vessel and/or its bhp is high the disadvantages of steam
lessen.

Rule of thumb a) marine diesel engine tending to 40% efficiency
b) marine gas turbine under 30%
c) marine steam plant 20- 25 %

To have a gas turbine that can handle the power of propelling the vessel at full power and supplying waste heat for the aux plant. By my estimates the plant will have to generate in excess of 75,000kg/hr of steam @ above 20 bar . that is going to be one gas guzzling set of turbines,with an economizer stack that will take up a sizable part of the island.
To have an auxilary steam plant that can maintain a decent sortie rate the rated power will make this auxilary plant not much smaller than the main plant.

Once the main plant is steam the size/weight of the plant will increase marginally for nearly a doubling of output power , hence aux power is not a huge issue.
I have no idea but guessing on the vintage of the orignal Vikrant, it was steam powered, hence the cat was a non issue.

I have been a bit peripheral on this outline my apologies, but just consider there are just a handful of steam powered platforms afloat (not counting nuke powered steam plant)

Hence it comes down to nuke with steam or diesel electric with e-malls
or ramp assisted take off.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Aug 2012 03:53

India verifying if US sold 'faulty' defense equipment

Indian defense minister has said that his government is investigating reports that faulty Chinese parts may have been used in military equipment sold by the US to India. The US Senate Armed Services Committee carried out a year-long investigation and found more than a million suspected counterfeit parts had made their way into the US Department of Defense's supply chain

Read more: http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticl ... z22zmv66pK

Antony noted that India had bought a landing pontoon dock and named it INS Jalashwa, UH3H helicopters for the same warship, Harpoon anti-submarine missiles, long-range acoustic devices, modern hull penetrating periscopes, side scan sonar, C-130J transport aircraft, sensor fused weapons, C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft, P-8I long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and quick reaction team boats from the US.

Read more: http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticl ... z22zqeV7rJ

The cost of EMALS,Cats are prohibitive,at least a couple of billion $,which is why even the RN has abandoned cats for its new carriers,and is acquiring the STOVL version of the JSF.For the IN,s planned 65K t carrier,the cost would perhaps be double than that of the current 45K t IAC-1.As we do not have the tech to build cats,where will they come from.Indigenous designs? Come again!
As usual,our PSU yards hand out tall claims and fanciful cost figures,which have time and time again have been found to be woefully off target.The low figure is given out to clinch the work order and then as the project commences,the inability of X manufacturer to deliver steel,or some such component surfaces,adding to delays,etc. The cost is then revised and revised and revised.With no accountability,and the Indian taxpayer footing the bill,all are happy.The yards have unlimited work,and management,babus and workers are kept in the gravy.This game has been played out with the Delhis,Shivaliks and now the IAC-1 which will only arrive-and not be commissioned at the earliest by 2017! With the reluctance of the MOD/PSUs to allow private yards (which have been set up at enormous cost) to build major warships and subs,whose expected superior performance will expose the incompetence of our PSUs,this drift will continue.So,"why we worry?"

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 09 Aug 2012 06:42

Philip wrote:As usual,our PSU yards hand out tall claims and fanciful cost figures,which have time and time again have been found to be woefully off target.The low figure is given out to clinch the work order and then as the project commences,the inability of X manufacturer to deliver steel,or some such component surfaces,adding to delays,etc. The cost is then revised and revised and revised.With no accountability,and the Indian taxpayer footing the bill,all are happy.The yards have unlimited work,and management,babus and workers are kept in the gravy.This game has been played out with the Delhis,Shivaliks and now the IAC-1 which will only arrive-and not be commissioned at the earliest by 2017! With the reluctance of the MOD/PSUs to allow private yards (which have been set up at enormous cost) to build major warships and subs,whose expected superior performance will expose the incompetence of our PSUs,this drift will continue.So,"why we worry?"

Why this tirade against the PSUs? Private sector is no magic wand that you can waive at any problem. Frequent revisions in contracted price has been misused by the private sector as well in the past (e.g. RIL in KG basin, Lockheed Martin in JSF). For preventing this sort of situation in the future, fixed price contracts for the shipyards, strictly enforced timelines for subcontractors and responsible Parliamentary oversight is the way to go.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 09 Aug 2012 07:01

Navy computers were hacked, says Antony

Computers of Eastern Naval Command were “compromised” in November 2011, Defence Minister A K Antony admitted on Wednesday.

The Eastern Naval Command in Visakhapatnam is one of the strategically important naval establishment. It harbours indigenous nuclear submarine INS Arihant, which is slated for trial in a few months thus completing India's nuclear triad.

The command also has Russian-origin nuclear submarine INS Chakra that joined the service earlier this year besides destroyers and frigates.

“There were intelligence reports in November 2011 about probable compromise of computers of the Eastern Naval Command based in Visakhapatnam. The matter has been investigated and appropriate steps have been taken to strengthen security of network,” Antony informed the Rajya Sabha.

The minister's admission on the leaking of sensitive military information from the command comes a day after outgoing Navy chief Admiral, Nirmal Verma, said that the board of inquiry (BoI) report is with the naval headquarters and stringent action will be taken against guilty officers.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Aug 2012 09:09

negi wrote:Katare sir projection of power and achieving air superiority (not just air defense) are one of the primary objectives of the USN carrier task force; hence the need for gigantic carriers with a fixed wing heavy AC compliment of 50-60+ . If you have so many aircraft on board and just one strip to launch and receive them then it's obvious you need an assisted take off mechanism to be able to ensure that each AC can lift as much payload in shortest possible time. Not many countries in the world share great Unkil's burden of bringing democracy to the third world so they don't require as big carriers and number of ACs as the former,also modern jet engine powered AC have enough juice in them to take off from a ski jump with enough stores to defend the task force so CAT becomes redundant to an extent for AD missions. Operational costs of a carrier with a huge AC compliment are huge in case of RN, RuN or IN if you have a typical compliment of 20-30 AC per carrier and you don't harbour ambitious goals of projecting air power anywhere in the globe but only employ them for defending the task force you don't need a CAT.

Imho use of a big Catapult system has become exclusive to Unkil because it is simply not required by others who don't envisage similar role for their navies.

Negi ji, this makes sense. So IAC2 is for power projection and would need cats to use its size and expanded 3 squds of air asset?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 09 Aug 2012 13:26

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 09 Aug 2012 13:35

This could somewhere in the Andamans one day in the future.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Aug 2012 13:39

Khalsa wrote:

eep ..whose bottom is that ..vikky ??

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Aug 2012 13:40

Khalsa wrote:This could somewhere in the Andamans one day in the future.

vikki and akki ., nice pair

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Aug 2012 13:54

Nice picture but thats not a Akula but Victor-3 SSN

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 09 Aug 2012 19:13

Terror threats factored into Navy’s preparations

Asked about the American plans to re-balance the Asia Pacific region by deployment of naval warships, the Navy Chief said: “Our primary area of interest extends from the Malacca Straits to the Gulf on the west and down south up to the Cape of Good Hope. This is the area where we would like to do much more than what we are doing today.”

A record number of 15 ships had been commissioned into the Navy over the past three years

I think this is the First time Confirmation of our Interests upto Antarctica.

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 09 Aug 2012 19:30

Shivalik Frigates Strengthen the Blue Water Navy

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2012 21:11

kit wrote:
Khalsa wrote:This could somewhere in the Andamans one day in the future.
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachme ... download=2
vikki and akki ., nice pair

Would not that be mandatory? we need at least one SSBN per A/C in a closed support role?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Aug 2012 21:33

Err... How did IN manage A/C for the past few decades without a single SSN ?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 09 Aug 2012 22:01

There is a huge swathe of ocean south of Cape of Good Hope and up to The southern continent.
We have not envloped this area of the ocean into our sphere of interest as yet,
possibly for a few reasons
a) we do not have the assets
b) once we can cover the cape of good hope and an area a few hundred miles south of it
there is no strategic signifance in that swath of ocean except for the vastness to hide our
boomers

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 09 Aug 2012 22:11

Looks like Kamorta is only joining IN in 2013. Too fricking long for a corvette with no missile and very little air defense.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Aug 2012 07:33

Pl. check into this link for a lengthy report on Russian sub status,nuclear boats being modernised into SSGNs carrying heavy arsenals of anti-ship missiles,new construction of "perfect" Kilos with digital eqpt.,Amur/Lada news,modernisation of Akulas,etc.It could have a bearing upon our sub fleet.

http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/08/0 ... ragon.html

SUBMARINES IN THE YEAR OF WATER DRAGON
08/08/2012

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Aug 2012 08:25

wow stealth housing for anchors..which ship sir?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 10 Aug 2012 11:54

Navy’s Marine Commandos

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Aug 2012 12:17

The initial sanction for the IMSF was 38 officers and 373 sailors. In 1999, after seeing the effectiveness of the MCF in Operation Vijay during the Kargil war, sanction was accorded for an additional company of 29 officers and 246 sailors.

So, the MARCOs strength is approx 700-800 only? Reaclled reading figures like 2000-2500 in many outlets.

Also, what was the MARCOs role in Kargil? Never recall reading anything about this before.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 10 Aug 2012 12:38

Singha wrote:wow stealth housing for anchors..which ship sir?

That looks like the bottom of the takeoff ramp an a/c.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Aug 2012 13:32

Philip wrote:Pl. check into this link for a lengthy report on Russian sub status,nuclear boats being modernised into SSGNs carrying heavy arsenals of anti-ship missiles,new construction of "perfect" Kilos with digital eqpt.,Amur/Lada news,modernisation of Akulas,etc.It could have a bearing upon our sub fleet.

http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/08/0 ... ragon.html

SUBMARINES IN THE YEAR OF WATER DRAGON
08/08/2012

The perfect Kilo is the one on drawing board

The article has quite a few errors but it sums up the issue well.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 10 Aug 2012 15:37

Singha wrote:wow stealth housing for anchors..which ship sir?

Vikramaditya ofcourse

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 10 Aug 2012 19:42

Khalsa wrote:

optimus prime

titash · Post by **titash** » 10 Aug 2012 20:43

Gents,
This is a pretty decent article re: shallow water ASW issues

Page 23 1st para details the challenges faced by the RN during 1982...I guess these among potential reasons why we retain the RBU-6000 launcher on new ships

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217434.pdf

Regards,

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Aug 2012 22:32

titash wrote:Gents,
This is a pretty decent article re: shallow water ASW issues

Page 23 1st para details the challenges faced by the RN during 1982...I guess these among potential reasons why we retain the RBU-6000 launcher on new ships

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217434.pdf

Regards,

Good read.

ASW Sensors

Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS)
Surveillance Towed Array System (SURTASS)
Rapid Deployable Sur(eillance System (RDSS)
Tactical Towed Arrays (TACTASS)
Variable Depth Sonars (VDS) and Dipping Sonars
Hull Mounted Sonars
Sonobouys

Nonacoustic Sensors

Radar
Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD)
Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and Signal Intelligence (SIGINT)
Forward-Lookina Infra-red (FLIR)
Satellites

...
During the Falklands war, 31 MK 46 torpedoes were launched mostly by helicopters against suspected submarine targets. Some of these hit the seabed, but most were fired at seabed wrecks and whales. The lack of depth-charges for aviation platforms was noted after the war as one of the lessons learned,. The inexpensive ship-mounted mortars played a positive role in attacking possible submarine targets which were thought to be hiding among seabed wrecks in the Falkland Sound.(1i:70) All this action was against the threat of one Argentine diesel
submarine. Just imagine what the Soviet submarine threat on the United States' continental shelf would cost in weapons launched against false targets!
...

arya · Post by **arya** » 10 Aug 2012 22:47

titash wrote:Gents,
This is a pretty decent article re: shallow water ASW issues

dear be gentle! you should remember "Mohtarma" first even u can use khavateen

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 10 Aug 2012 23:41

@titash: Good article!

Further explains why the IN wanted to keep the MAD on the P-8Is. MAD is especially useful in shallow water ASW ops. Especially significant if you already have a map of all the known magnetic sources (wrecks) on the seabed. Should be easy for us as we have not had a great seafaring tradition in the age of meal ships and there won't be many big wrecks around that a enemy sub can use to hide.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Aug 2012 01:35

Pic from....er Battleship-2? he!he!

titash · Post by **titash** » 11 Aug 2012 01:44

@anand_sarkar

MAD typically has a high false alarm rate due to seabed wrecks, etc and needs to be used in conjunction with SONAR to get a positive ID. But what you say makes sense...the IN has all of peacetime to generate a baseline map of shallow water MAD signatures. During wartime (one would assume) the real-time MAD signatures would be used to generate a 'heat map' versus baseline. Red spots on the 'heat-map' could be investigated by an ASW heli or Philip's 'Janata class' corvette

Regards,

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 11 Aug 2012 03:26

narmad wrote:
Khalsa wrote:

optimus prime

Yeah Yeah I was thinking something like a highly strong greek-O-metallic structure of a hero but that Optimus Prime thing nails it.
good one

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Aug 2012 19:55

How much of LCH and Dhruv specs can be utilized by IN for their new 56 anti-sub warfare use? Why are they tendering globally for this?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19560
The twin-engine helicopters, with a 4,500-kg maximum "all up" weight and capable of operating from warship decks, will be armed with 70mm rocket launchers and 12.7mm guns as well as lightweight torpedoes and depth charges.

With a "modern airframe design, proven fuel-efficient engines and fully-integrated advanced avionics", these new helicopters will replace the existing fleet of Chetaks inducted over three decades ago.

This is Navy's second major "rotary wing" project. The first is for around 90 multi-role helicopters in the 9 to12.5-tonne class, with potent combat capabilities as well as customized for amphibious assaults and commando operations, at a cost of over $2.5 billion to replace ageing Sea King helicopters.

what is lacking within out capabilities?.. why can't IN support homegrown one for this?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 12 Aug 2012 20:58

The Indian navy tried the Dhruv if I am not mistaken they have 6 or 8 of them. These are used on shore based duties only.
They found them lacking in range , load , rotor folding to name a few.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Aug 2012 00:05

as compared to the chetak in use now ? other than the rotor folding, which is part of the dhruv's hingeless rotor design, the rest aren't true.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Aug 2012 02:45

Government, military, babu: Admiral Arun Prakash