Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2013 19:38

I think kilos are being unfairly bashed up here well before any findings.
we have operated kilos and so has algeria, iran, cheen for decades with no such problem.

its not as if TFTA munnas like 787, 747 and F-solahs have not crashed or strong square-jawed 688I class subs have not smacked into underwater reefs or surfaced right under merchant ships using their billion dollah sensors!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2013 20:09

Western offers to assist in the salvage of the sub are coming in thick and fast from Germany,France,etc.,for obvious reasons.They want to get a good look at the stricken Kilo and glean whatever intel they can,as the Kilo is the most successful Russian sub export since the Foxtrot and very quiet. Single-hulled Germana and French subs are less capable of absorbing damage than double-hulled Russian subs.The double hull also gives one the opportunity of providing extra acoustic insulation on both hulls apart from the anechoic rubber tiles on the outside of the hull. Russian rafting techniques for the engines and machinery would also be of great interest to western sub manufacturers,esp. the Swedes whose Collins class is reputed to be the noisiest around.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 871022.cms?

INS Sindhurakshak: Indian Navy sticks to ‘accident’ story behind submarine disaster
Rajat Pandit, TNN | Aug 17, 2013, 02.17 AM IST

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 21:00

so the accident version seems to be one of the torpedoes hit a wall/obstacle while loading, sustained damage which probably went unnoticed and after loading into the tube the leaking chemical came in contact with oil or a ESD event triggering a fire and then two quick explosions in succession, first one breached the hull also took out the battery compartment, so no alarms, the 2nd one felt stronger to the sailors standing on the sub because of the breach. A few minutes later a Klub missile got ejected making the whoosh sound but didn't explode. From the video after the fire started only one explosion can be heard, the last one, probably another torpedo going off. The fact that Aug 14th was the sailing date due to our own I-day generated a false positive of Aug 14th as the date of the incident spooking us.

Another version could be the first exploded torpedo was in the tube where it was plugged in with the subs control system versus the ones in the racks which haven't exploded. Stuxnet type of trojan in the subs control system triggered the torpedo in the tube. Kilo has been around for few decades and Russians term it as a simple design, its control system design would have been outed by now (or reverse-engineered) not to mention this sub was in a Russian yard for a refit recently outside IN's 24x7 observation.

On Kursk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_su ... _explosion

Recovered remains of the torpedo later allowed the first explosion to be pinpointed to the middle part of the torpedo. According to maintenance records the dummy torpedoes, manufactured in the 1990s, had never had their welds checked; such checks were considered unnecessary as the torpedoes did not carry warheads.[citation needed]

The explosive reaction of 1.5 tons of concentrated hydrogen peroxide and 500 kg of kerosene blew off the external torpedo tube cover and the internal tube door. (The torpedo tube cover was later found on the seabed and its position relative to the rest of the submarine served as evidence of this version of events.) The tube door, which should have been capable of withstanding such an explosion, was not properly closed; the electrical connectors between the torpedoes and the tube doors were unreliable and often required repeated reclosing of the door before a contact was established, so it is likely that at the moment of explosion the door was not fully closed.

After reading about Kursk, here is a differentiator, did the first torpedo explode due to warhead going off or from the leaking propellant even if the lag between these events is in microseconds, its a forensics question.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Aug 2013 21:10

^sorry missed your assumptions source of origin.. are you speaking off a evidence source point?

first of all, when torpedoes hits something while loading, the SOP call would not be to ignore the incident... and the further course of actions would be different.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 21:16

From the article,

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ine-klub-s

INS Sindhurakshak, with a full complement of 18 missiles and torpedoes, was set to sail on "a long deployment patrol" early on Wednesday morning. The submarine's second-in-command or executive officer Lt-Commander Nikhilesh Pal, a bachelor, was on board for the final "prepare sub for sea" when something went drastically wrong.

"The torpedo air flask, which contains compressed pure oxygen, could have exploded due to something even if the exploder mechanism had not been inserted into it. Sympathetic detonation would have followed since the missiles and torpedoes are stacked together in the six tubes and the 12 racks behind them," said the source.

Rejecting hydrogen gas leakage as a "dim possibility", the sources said the 240 lead acid batteries, each weighing around 800kg, on the submarine were "brand new" after its over two-year $156 million refit in Russia.

" Old batteries emit more hydrogen. The maximum amount of hydrogen is emitted while batteries are being charged ... the process had been finished in INS Sindhurakshak over two days before the mishap. Moreover, Hydrogen levels are continuously monitored by duty-watch sailors," he said.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 21:21

SaiK wrote:^sorry missed your assumptions source of origin.. are you speaking off a evidence source point?

first of all, when torpedoes hits something while loading, the SOP call would not be to ignore the incident... and the further course of actions would be different.

one news report said this, the 3 surviving officers are the best bet to confirm this though.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Aug 2013 21:26

but the above does not point what caused the sydet. it can't be an inadvertant incident that can't be noticed.. from given an understanding that even i tap your shoulder from the back, you will get a feeling of something touched you, and you turn your face around to the source of noise/touch.

there is also something called defective parts... that failed to keep it under specified shock wave protection.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 21:34

sydet as in sympathetic explosion is a given, its still the first torpedo explosion that needs to be understood. read the wiki article on Kursk

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Aug 2013 21:35

correct, but there is no evidence as to your assumptions that some inadvertant incident is the reason.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 22:03

a) Defective material vs (b) SOPs not followed would probably impact warranty aspects,
(a) would need forensics,
(b) initial reports said something got hit or slipping, its not my assumption, can be attested to by the survivors

but either of these sources (a) or (b) point to Kursk type of accident

now if you don't want to rule sabotage then
(A) accident vs (B) possible sabotage can be deduced if we know there was (A) fire first then torpedo warhead detonation or
(B) vice-versa, again a forensics question since the survivors who are outside the sub can't tell the sequence of the micro events

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Aug 2013 22:13

mil specific safety criticals, normally modified coverage decision coverage tests are done -- perhaps did not cover certain aspects of SOP or operational requriement - if what you are saying is true, then we can see these incidents again and again. the torpedoes needs to be pulled out and replaced with something that fits our SOP.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 18 Aug 2013 22:29

yes, the fact that such accidents don't happen more often given that these torpedoes are operated by many fleets, i.e., one expects the statistical incidence to be high, it only happened to IN's frontline sub after Kursk is still a 'coincidence'. In the case of Kursk the torpedo exploded when it was about to be fired, basically armed and in the torpedo tube.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 18 Aug 2013 22:39

Anything known about the ones who survived....what's their story.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 18 Aug 2013 22:54

Major Sub Disasters

http://www.nationalgeographic.co.in/k19 ... _main.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Aug 2013 01:37

Someone please find cut away pics, drawings, descriptions of the two types of torpedoes that were inboard the stricken sub.

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 19 Aug 2013 01:54

This is our version of the bind mans bluff!
You will read it all now in DDM under UPA selected doctored version.
The whole of the administration derives inspiration from the top like PM DM HM
If recent events on china border, and TSP activities
are indications these kinds of accident events are inevitable because the slack travel down the chain

One of the ways float this sub is to weld every leaking orifice
and then weld a pipe to a new hatch then weld the hatch to replace the hatch that is already out of shape
Now pump out the water in the sub and let it levitate to surface due to buoyancy
Yes the welding will be under water

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Aug 2013 02:17

How about we collect news reports:

DNA reports

Navy divers gain access to front compartment

11 images from Ind Express;

Images of INS Sindhurakshak

Are they standing on the deck of the sub?

Wiki article has links to the news reports so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Sindhu ... _%28S63%29

Some material for people to get familiar to understand what happened:

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

and

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

Reason is in my view what happened is not a statistical mishap(normally distributed events e.g. 1 in 10^8) but a a combination of factors that let this happen. Essentially what happened was a long chain of events which uncovered a weakness leading to submarine safety.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Aug 2013 03:03

was it carrying Type 53 torpedoes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53-65

Was the type

Power plant:

* 53-65 and 53-65M: Kerosene-hydrogen peroxide turbine
* 53-65K: Kerosene-oxygen turbine

That would have the O2 flask.

tsarkar confirmed on 14 August that its the 53-65K that is in IN service.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1496100

So need to find an Osprey book on the 53-65K for cutaway diagrams to understand how it could leak if dropped or mishandled.

Also tsarkar had already posted a link to a Kilo cut away to get an idea of the general layout of the sub:

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... way_lg.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2013 03:18

ramana, i was thinking about type-53 leak - similar to kursk.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4742/zfy.png

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Aug 2013 05:26

Yeah, you need to revise the fault tree to say oxygen flask rupture to match the Type 53-65K which has kerosene-oxygen turbine. The Kursk is leak. Here the flask got damaged. Why?

Then it would match the signature:small fire, big flash and then the warhead exploding. Then the second torpedo goes off and next the Klub-S ejects.

Now what caused the small fire and the oxygen flask rupture?
The usual Five Whys?

i think that one outcome will be to switch to battery operated torpedoes.

If I know my WWII history the Nazis had a turbine powered torpedo running on Hydrogen peroxide and a fuel which was for their Type 21 submarine and was copied all over the world. Even then the comob was considered quite unsafe.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2013 06:43

essentially we need to go varunastra for all subs?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2013 10:12

Thermal Torpedoes still get the most bang per buck in terms of energy they pack batteries come next , Kerosene/Oxygen fuel is still better compared to HTP fuel.

Nothing can save a Torpedo from explosion if they are damaged , not handled properly while loading , SOP were not followed , material defects or an external explosion caused it to explode as part of secondary explosion .....this risk remains in all subs.

We are not sure if the primary explosion came from battery exploding for reasons unknown or Klub exploding while loading which was the primary source of explosion or it was the torpedo exploded for what ever reason that caused the others to explode.

Difficult to find out after such catastrophic explosion and no one is alive to tell the tale ....Even Kursk explosion was hypothesized to a leaking HTP fuel caused by handling problem which went unnoticed in case of Kursk there were crew alive for few hours in other compartment that wrote on a piece of paper what happened till they ran out of oxygen. Subsequent test on Type 65 torpedo with HTP fuel itself did not show any issue but due to safety concerns all Type 65 with HTP fuel were removed from service.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 19 Aug 2013 12:36

wrt Navy may lease Kilo-class subs from Russia -

IMO if the idea is to turn to Russia, it would be better to opt for Amur 1650s. though they are single hulled with reduced displacement, they are more silent than the Kilos.

Amur 1650

Acoustic signature of the Amur 1650 submarine is several times lower compared to Kilo class submarines which are currently considered to be the most silent in the world.

seem to be more safer (!) as the comparison pictures below shows -

Kilo -

Amur 1650 -

as can be seen, the battery compartment below the torpedo tubes has been moved away and compartmentalised from the firing tubes.

Amur 1650 PDF

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Aug 2013 12:55

was the kilo double hull to better withstand depth charges or just to facilitate operating in icy conditions with ice floes knocking around?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2013 13:41

Since the pressure hull is not directly exposed to the elements its an added layer of protection but the out hull of Double Hull is made of lighter steel compared to inner pressure hull. Any thing hits the out hull takes the first impact. I have read stories of pressure hull taking some impact from elements which restricts their depth and number of dives as safety measure.

Also they have better reserve buoyancy and can withstand few compartment getting flooded without sinking .......the disadvantage is higher wetted surface area and which means you need more power to drive this baby something of precious comodity in conventional subs and maintenance being more headache.

Now if Sindhukirti was indeed hit by some elements of bast before it was towed away for safety and if the hit was restricted to out hull or most impact being taken by outer hull then it can be repaired and put into normal service , had it been a single hull and the hit taken on the pressure hull then it may have impacted its combat ability in terms of diving depth or number of dives etc ...... so it all depends.

The Kilo doublehull design is nothing to do with ice , they cant operate in real icy conditions like Akula can do.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2013 15:27

Austin wrote:T
Nothing can save a Torpedo from explosion if they are damaged , not handled properly while loading , SOP were not followed , material defects or an external explosion caused it to explode as part of secondary explosion .....this risk remains in all subs.

We are not sure if the primary explosion came from battery exploding for reasons unknown or Klub exploding while loading which was the primary source of explosion or it was the torpedo exploded for what ever reason that caused the others to explode.

Difficult to find out after such catastrophic explosion and no one is alive to tell the tale ....Even Kursk explosion was hypothesized to a leaking HTP fuel caused by handling problem which went unnoticed in case of Kursk there were crew alive for few hours in other compartment that wrote on a piece of paper what happened till they ran out of oxygen. Subsequent test on Type 65 torpedo with HTP fuel itself did not show any issue but due to safety concerns all Type 65 with HTP fuel were removed from service.

good points.. can't imagine the havoc it can cause if is an SSN/SSBN.

btw, found something here for you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667731/posts
DCNS has developed an important component for safe deployment: an energy pack based on an aluminum/silver oxide electric battery that needs seawater for activation—an element unlikely to be found in the submarine.

To meet submarine safety requirements, the F21 will be launched by a technique in which it is pushed out of the boat by a piston, after which a valve in the torpedo opens and lets seawater into the battery to activate it. The battery “provides high energy density and is the best-performing [type] on the market.”

One problem with competitive torpedoes that are equipped with older-generation batteries is that to achieve the energy for their missions and countermeasures, they “need long batteries, which add so much to their length that they no longer fit into launchers,” Le Roy says. The torpedo must also have enough energy left once it has reached its target to attack and sink it. “We are talking about high-value targets such as aircraft carriers and frigates,”

France specified this electric system “because it is safe and silent,” says Loic Beaurepaire, marketing and business development manager. “In underwater missions, silence is of the utmost importance to avoid detection by the enemy,” he remarks. “This system enables a totally silent attack.”

The new torpedo weighs 1.2 tons, has a range of 50 km. (31 mi.), speed of 50 kt., and 1-hr. endurance. It can attack multiple targets and has extended fiber-optic wire guidance. DCNS says it is resistant to most countermeasures.

The warhead contains PBX B2211, a high-impulse, high-bubble-energy, insensitive explosive that conforms to NATO’s Stanag 4439 and France’s Murat (Munitions a Risques Attenues) standards. The torpedo uses an all-electric “fuse-and-slapper” detonation technology. Primarily used in missiles, the plasma-based slapper system is more stable and safer than the conventional electro-mechanical detonation systems in most torpedoes.

We just put an exercise section on it instead of an explosive one. We can also change the primary battery, providing it with a secondary battery based on lithium-ion technology, which is reusable a great number of times.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2013 15:43

I think what DCN is saying is F21 battery is the best of its class but are the best batteries today give as much energy as best Thermal Torpedoes using Chemicals ?

For any thing but safety purpose its better to move to only battery powered torpedoes what ever the trade off involved , with Scorpene that would be the case.

We need to wait till we hear on official inquiry report from Navy atleast their version of the event , its possible that the Klub might have exploded for what ever reason and torpedo explosion could be the secondary one ....lot of variables and possibility when you have so much of Explosive , High Energy Chemicals and Hydrogen producing batteries all stored in close proximity with each other.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 19 Aug 2013 16:03

14:27 Iginition of armaments could have caused Sindhurakshak explosion: Antony: Talking about the INS Sindhurakshak tragedy in the Rajya Sabha, Antony said, "Initial reports suggest explosion due to fire in cabin. The fire was due to internal problems in the submarine. Efforts are on to pump out water from the compartments. None of the 18 navy personnel on board could escape."

Possible ignition of armaments could have causes the explosion, he added.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2013 16:08

Fire in which Cabin is not clear but could be due to battery ?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 19 Aug 2013 16:14

but internal problem ???? so sub had some tech issue which actually lead to the accident ??

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2013 16:25

If there was a tech issue she wouldnt be loaded for mission next day , Fire in Internal cabin would mean something in there caught fire and then a secondary explosion in warhead , could be they were fixing some internal problems in cabin close to weapons that came to their notice and that started the fire ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2013 18:30

if that was a scheduled issue or a service call then, they would not be loading for a mission/routine exercise.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 19 Aug 2013 19:20

Amyrao wrote:Requiring / Aquiring oreign help to salvage a sub sunk in its pen
Tells how much strategic thinking goes into our Defense preparedness
and the state of engineering and in country and research capabilities
This is a wake up call for so many things that's. topic for different ...

How many wake up calls do we need to get ahead ?

We lost a 'Petya' class patrol boat, way back in early1990s, probably due to poor maintenence. I hope we have learnt some lessons then

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2013 20:23

If we know the loading sequence we may get somewhere.That is if a munition was mishandled or damaged,whatever.As said earlier,since 3 crew members escaped by jumping overboard,or were thrown overboard by the blast,they would be able to confirm whether loading was still underway or completed.If loading was underway,then it would point to most probably a mishap while handling the munitions.If after loading was complete ,then something else. The report that smoke,fire,etc. emanated from the sail,indicates that the hatch between the torpedo section and control room was probably open,as the other hatches which were closed fused with the hull due to the intense heat.They did not blow outwards from what we know.Was there other flammable material other than the munitions being loaded through the main hatch through the sail,which could've set off a fire?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 19 Aug 2013 20:38

it would seem rational that the 3 men who survived did so because they were able to get away before the large(r) explosions. they obviously saw the initial flash/fire and realised that something big was going to blow, or that the smaller fire/blast knocked them off the deck. clearly everyone else was below deck and then the main blast happened. the first blast appears to be light/hot - suggesting hydrogen, the latter looks more like a complex hydrocarbon type - could be fuel, could be explosives or could be a terrible scenario where the first explosion created some kind of fuel/air/warhead cloud/slurry that subsequently exploded

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Aug 2013 22:27

Philip wrote:Western offers to assist in the salvage of the sub are coming in thick and fast from Germany,France,etc.,for obvious reasons.They want to get a good look at the stricken Kilo and glean whatever intel they can,as the Kilo is the most successful Russian sub export since the Foxtrot and very quiet. Single-hulled Germana and French subs are less capable of absorbing damage than double-hulled Russian subs.The double hull also gives one the opportunity of providing extra acoustic insulation on both hulls apart from the anechoic rubber tiles on the outside of the hull. Russian rafting techniques for the engines and machinery would also be of great interest to western sub manufacturers,esp. the Swedes whose Collins class is reputed to be the noisiest around.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 871022.cms?

INS Sindhurakshak: Indian Navy sticks to ‘accident’ story behind submarine disaster
Rajat Pandit, TNN | Aug 17, 2013, 02.17 AM IST

Some hungry joker in the present government just needs to be paid off for some interested gora company to be invited to salvage the sunken sub.

Never underestimate the colossal power of greed, ethihad has publicly proved the theory. The bloody UPA buggers are all standing in line, panting and salivating with outstretched hands.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 19 Aug 2013 22:41

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 916455.cms

Rescuers from the Indian Navy on Monday extricated one more body from INS Sindhurakshak, taking the number of victims recovered from the fire-devastated submarine to seven even as professional savers from reputed companies commenced preliminary survey activities.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 19 Aug 2013 23:47

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-23756348

India has ordered a review of its submarines' weapons safety systems, after initial investigations showed arms on board the INS Sindhurakshak may have played a role in its sinking.

"Extensive checks on weapons-related safety systems and standard operating procedures on all operational submarines of the Indian navy have been ordered," defence minister AK Antony told parliament.

"Preliminary investigations indicate that the explosion was due to the possible ignition of armament. The cause of ignition is, however, yet to be established. Forensic examination would throw more light into the possible cause of ignition," Mr Antony is quoted as saying in India's Economic Times newspaper.

member_27444 · Post by **member_27444** » 20 Aug 2013 04:16

In a way it depresses to know that we don't have capacity to lift a sub sunk in our pen
It is even more depressing ha we can't make a tarpedo of our own

It's simple compressed air operated ones have been in use since WW iI
You can see the cut models in every military museums its a drone in ne'er water

The homing and sensing systems are now miniaturized that's all

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2013 08:51

Really?
Indtead of usual rhona dhona why not try yo bring some knowledge to the table. Look up torpedo designs and see which is the best solution moving forward.
How about foing a state diagram and develop a hazards matrix.