not any longer , i guessCosmo_R wrote:It's all part of a chankian strategy to hide in plain sight. from.chandanus wrote:Was in a city , noticed a guy carring some parts n PCBs on back of a bicycle..a little chat revealed that they were parts for homing head our home grown torpedo
NEW DELHI: The anti-missile defensive shield protecting 14 frontline warships, including aircraft carrier INS Viraat, is fast eroding but the government is dragging its feet on taking a decision one way or the other due to an ongoing CBI probe into the original deal.
The Navy has been pressing panic buttons for quite some time about its fast depleting stock of missiles to arm the Israeli Barak-I anti-missile defence (AMD) system - which intercept hostile incoming sea-skimming missiles at a 9km range - fitted on INS Viraat as well as guided-missile destroyers and stealth frigates.
Sources said that Navy chief Admiral DK Joshi has even written to defence minister AK Antony for an early decision on the acquisition of an additional 262 Barak-I missiles, at a cost of over $150 million, since it was a "critical operational requirement".
But the defence ministry had expressed helplessness due to the pending CBI investigation into the infamous Barak kickbacks case registered in October 2006. The law ministry and the attorney general, however, have now left it on the MoD to decide on the fresh procurement case. "The ball is firmly in the MoD's court now," said a source.
The law ministry had earlier held the case should not be sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security for approval till the CBI probe was completed. But the CBI has failed to make much headway "due to pending letters rogatory (letters of request)" in Israel and UK. "With Navy pressing for a fresh legal opinion, it was held the MoD get an external evaluation or audit done. Now, even that caveat has been removed," said the source.
But in the backdrop of the VVIP helicopter and other scams ahead of the 2014 general elections, the MoD seems reluctant to take a decision even though it "understands" the urgency for the Barak-I missiles.
It was after Pakistan acquired sea-skimming Exocet and Harpoon missiles, coupled with the failure of the indigenous Trishul AMD system, that the then NDA government had inked the initial Rs 1,160 crore deal for nine Barak-I AMD systems, along with 200 missiles worth Rs 350 crore, with Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael in October 2000.
Subsequently, under the UPA-1 regime in October 2006, the CBI registered the FIR in the Barak kickbacks case to name former defence minister George Fernandes, his party associates Jaya Jaitly and R K Jain, alleged arms dealer Suresh Nanda and former Navy chief Admiral Sushil Kumar among the accused.
The irony is that the UPA government has refrained from blacklisting IAI and Rafael, despite banning other firms like Israeli Military Industries, Singapore Technologies Kinetics, Rheinmetall Air Defence (Zurich) and Corporation Defence of Russia in other corruption cases, on the ground that it would be counter-productive.
IAI and DRDO, for instance, are collaborating in two major but delayed projects to develop a long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) system for Rs 2,606 crore to arm Indian warships and a medium-range SAM system for IAF at a cost of Rs 10,076 crore.
LOL at the court of St Antony...he neither prevents corruption nor can he stop corruption. All he stops is modernisation.arijitkm wrote:Anti-missile shield for frontline Navy warships fast eroding
NEW DELHI: The anti-missile defensive shield protecting 14 frontline warships, including aircraft carrier INS Viraat, is fast eroding but the government is dragging its feet on taking a decision one way or the other due to an ongoing CBI probe into the original deal.
The Navy has been pressing panic buttons for quite some time about its fast depleting stock of missiles to arm the Israeli Barak-I anti-missile defence (AMD) system - which intercept hostile incoming sea-skimming missiles at a 9km range - fitted on INS Viraat as well as guided-missile destroyers and stealth frigates.
Sources said that Navy chief Admiral DK Joshi has even written to defence minister AK Antony for an early decision on the acquisition of an additional 262 Barak-I missiles, at a cost of over $150 million, since it was a "critical operational requirement".
But the defence ministry had expressed helplessness due to the pending CBI investigation into the infamous Barak kickbacks case registered in October 2006. The law ministry and the attorney general, however, have now left it on the MoD to decide on the fresh procurement case. "The ball is firmly in the MoD's court now," said a source.
The law ministry had earlier held the case should not be sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security for approval till the CBI probe was completed. But the CBI has failed to make much headway "due to pending letters rogatory (letters of request)" in Israel and UK. "With Navy pressing for a fresh legal opinion, it was held the MoD get an external evaluation or audit done. Now, even that caveat has been removed," said the source.
But in the backdrop of the VVIP helicopter and other scams ahead of the 2014 general elections, the MoD seems reluctant to take a decision even though it "understands" the urgency for the Barak-I missiles.
It was after Pakistan acquired sea-skimming Exocet and Harpoon missiles, coupled with the failure of the indigenous Trishul AMD system, that the then NDA government had inked the initial Rs 1,160 crore deal for nine Barak-I AMD systems, along with 200 missiles worth Rs 350 crore, with Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael in October 2000.
Subsequently, under the UPA-1 regime in October 2006, the CBI registered the FIR in the Barak kickbacks case to name former defence minister George Fernandes, his party associates Jaya Jaitly and R K Jain, alleged arms dealer Suresh Nanda and former Navy chief Admiral Sushil Kumar among the accused.
The irony is that the UPA government has refrained from blacklisting IAI and Rafael, despite banning other firms like Israeli Military Industries, Singapore Technologies Kinetics, Rheinmetall Air Defence (Zurich) and Corporation Defence of Russia in other corruption cases, on the ground that it would be counter-productive.
IAI and DRDO, for instance, are collaborating in two major but delayed projects to develop a long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) system for Rs 2,606 crore to arm Indian warships and a medium-range SAM system for IAF at a cost of Rs 10,076 crore.
The U.K. Royal Navy is broadening the scope of how it might use its future fleet of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
The first of the two ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is 80% complete internally according to Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the head of the U.K. Fleet Air Arm, speaking at the Defence Services Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in London Sept. 10. The vessel is due to be launched “some time in 2014” while work on the sister ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, is proceeding apace.
The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.
A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.
Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”
Significant work has gone into reducing the manpower levels of the ship. Current crew complement for the vessel alone is 679 sailors, compared to 3,200 for a Nimitz-class carrier of the U.S. Navy. Harding said such savings were possible through the use of greater automation. He described the weapon-handling system as similar to that found in an “Amazon.com warehouse.”
As the entry into service of the carriers nears, the U.K. is planning to send more than 300 personnel from officers to sailors to gain experience in carrier operations with the U.S. Navy on its CVNs and with the U.S. Marine Corps on its LHDs. And while more pilots will be involved in exchanges with Navy Hornet squadrons and Marine Harrier units, one officer will exchange on the French navy’s Dassault Super Etendard carrier-borne fighter bomber in a bid to gain experience flying operations from small deck carriers.
The future of the HMS Prince of Wales is currently unclear. In the 2010 SDSR, it was decided that the ship would go into “extended reserve.” Harding told delegates that the final decision would be made during SDSR 2015 but said that with the money spent on the ship, retaining it as a backup to the Queen Elizabeth on an extended readiness might be a cost-effective solution.
Is it ever a good idea for a sub to take shots at a anti sub helo or aircraft ? Not giving away its position is better idea since no sub can travel faster than sound , its location may be easily sanitised.Austin wrote:Hopefully we get this for our Scorpene , quite an intresting concept in Submarine Air Self Defence
A3SM: Submarine Self Defence against Threats from the Sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlxIVCurxc4
At least 24 minesweepers needed; and at one time, Indian Navy had 18 of them.
Even after completing the contract negotiations with a South Korean shipyard for building eight minesweepers for the Indian Navy, bureaucratic red tape and procedural wrangle have over the past one year have delayed inking the deal as the files are still doing the rounds in the Defence Ministry.
The process to acquire badly needed minesweepers for the Navy was initiated 13 years ago and the Government is yet to sign the deal with the South Korean firm Kangam which had emerged as the lowest bidder. As a result, Navy’s wait to add to its already depleted strength of minesweepers still continues and the already negotiated deal, estimated to be worth Rs. 24,000 crores, appears to be in a state of limbo.
Though the deal with South Korea denotes New Delhi’s “strategic” partnership with Seoul, the uncertainty in signing the deal is only adding to the woes of the South Korean firm which had emerged as L1 or the lowest bidder in the tendering process in April last year, highly placed sources in the Navy said. Kangam had beaten Italian firm Intermarine and won the bid.
According to the deal, first two minesweepers also called Mine Counter Measure Vessels (MCMV) will be constructed at Pusan, South Korea and the remaining six will be built at the Goa Shipyard through the route of technology transfer. Each of the specialised vessel is likely to cost around Rs. 3,000 crore.
The Navy needs at least 24 minesweepers and at one time had 18 of them. Minesweepers are specialised warships which are used in clearing the sea mines. These vessels are capable of acting as minesweepers and mine hunters. Informed sources said the contract could not be signed after Intermarine of Italy, the Kangam’s competitor, approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
Senior Navy officials say the CVC was informed about the selection process of Kangam and it was thought that the matter has been settled. Navy officials say that India’s ports face the threat of undersea mines that could be planted, putting merchant ships at risk and affecting the trade route that could cripple the country’s economy.
“The role of Navy during the conflict is to also ensure free flow of trade. If harbours are not clear of undersea mines, you can imagine how badly it will hit the country’s economy,” a senior official said. MCMVs are needed to provide safe passage at exit and entry points to a harbour which is critical to Naval operations. Under water mines can be laid easily and these self-contained explosives can pose grave threat to warships and merchant vessels. India boasts of 186 ports of which 13 are major ports.
Minesweepers or the MCMVs use specialised composite material and high grade steel and are equipped to detect all kinds of underwater mines. The Indian Navy operates 12 minesweepers of the Pondicherry and Karwar class but these vessels have become outdated. “If the deal is signed today, Kangam will deliver the first two MCMVs by 2017 and it will take another three or four years for the Goa Shipyard to build its first minesweeper after getting the technology. After that the shipyard can deliver one vessel every year,” sources said.
maz wrote:IN getting more fast interceptor/ patrol craft - this time with ONGC funding. ONGC to hand over 23 ISV by early 2014 to the IN for patrolling ODA. 14 ISV are from Craftway Engineers/SHM Shipcare in Darukhana and 9 from Abu Dhabi Shipbuilding to a Rodman Polyships design.
http://freepressjournal.in/navy-gets-in ... allations/
http://www.shmshipcare.com/
http://www.diabgroup.com/en-GB/Cases/Ma ... e-in-India
This means the SPB now operates/ has on order 15 Couach built FIC, at least 4 (and possibly as many as 12 ) Solas Marine built FIC from 80 ordered and 3 ISV from 23 ordere. i addition, there are a number of leased fast craft in use by the SPB. Totals add up to 118 FIC type vessels at a minimum within the next 3 years or so. Quite encouraging.
Mumbai High's security is not with any private security group. It's security has been taken care by ODAG (Offshore Defence Advisory Group) which consisits of personnel from navy and cosat guard.Aditya G wrote:Hi Maz,
ONGC funded acquisition of vessels by the Navy sounds like a first time such a model has been adopted.
Till now Bombay High was in private ONGC security for routine patrolling. So I think this is a significant development for Navy to take over the security - or is it only for on demand support?
Indeed, and FODAG is even funded by ONGC.dinakar wrote:Mumbai High's security is not with any private security group. It's security has been taken care by ODAG (Offshore Defence Advisory Group) which consisits of personnel from navy and cosat guard.Aditya G wrote:Hi Maz,
ONGC funded acquisition of vessels by the Navy sounds like a first time such a model has been adopted.
Till now Bombay High was in private ONGC security for routine patrolling. So I think this is a significant development for Navy to take over the security - or is it only for on demand support?
Corrupt Classrooms Cripple Indian Navy Expansion
by James Dunnigan
September 16, 2013
The Indian Navy leadership believes that in the next two decades the American Navy will have fewer ships based in or around the Indian Ocean. At the same time the Chinese Navy will, in effect, try to replace the Americans. India does not want that. After all, it’s not called the Indian Ocean for nothing. The Indian response is to nearly double the size of their navy. That means manpower needs will nearly double, from the current 8,700 officers, 50,000 enlisted sailors, and 43,000 civilians to 10,600 officers, 85,000 sailors, and 75,000 civilians. The navy believes this personnel expansion will be much more difficult than obtaining more ships.
Finding more sailors is difficult in India because of some unique problems, mostly having to do with corruption. A major economic problem for India is the lack of education, especially for younger children. Corruption has crippled the existing public education system, with many teaching and administrative jobs in schools considered patronage (to be given to supporters of politicians rather than those qualified to teach). The patronage jobs are often of the “no-show” (except to collect pay) variety. Patronage teaching jobs have long been a major problem in India and the reason India has such a difficult time providing qualified workers for technical jobs (those that at least require basic reading and math skills).
For the Indian military this education system corruption has been a growing problem. As the military acquires more high-tech gear there is a growing need for better educated troops to operate and maintain it. The Indian economy has been growing rapidly for the last two decades and offers better pay and working conditions to the educated young men the military wants. Then there is the problem with obtaining officers, who must also possess more education and technical skills. Again, the civilian economy offers more attractive careers for the same people the military wants as officers. The Indian military has been suffering growing officer shortages over the last decade, and the navy expansion plans recognize this by acknowledging that the expansion will make the naval officer shortage worse. The navy is only expecting (at best) to increase officer strength by a quarter when it needs twice as many.
The corrupt education system also cripples Indian efforts to build its own warships. For most of the last sixty years India bought its warships from foreign firms. First there was World War II surplus vessels obtained from Britain, followed by new built ships from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But in the last decade India has been trying to build its own, with mixed success. Again it’s the corruption and education problems.
China has much less corruption in education and a better educated workforce. This means the Chinese Navy has better educated personnel and fewer personnel shortages. The Chinese got into commercial and military shipbuilding before the Indians did and had many of the same problems with quality control and corruption. But the Chinese persevered and now compete with Western ship builders, mainly on price. That still required minimum quality standards, and the Chinese industry weeded out the firms that could not compete and created a shipbuilding industry that could also produce competent warships. India never had the advantage of being a competitive commercial shipbuilder and is thus struggling with corrupt and inefficient warship builders.
India’s plans to expand its navy look good on paper, but the reality is that these plans crippled from the start because of corruption and education problems.
Exactly. Good for a laugh at best..Rahul M wrote:we used to have a standing moratorium on posting stuff from strategypage. ^^^ should go to the humour thread, not here.
It was indeed ONGC that funded Sukanya class OPVs.maz wrote:If I remember correctly, ONGC (or some other entity) also funded the Sukanya class OPVs. It is not unusual for state owned oil companies to fund naval/ CG platforms.
You have become our resident Cassandra!!!Pratyush wrote:In November sevmash will be ice lovked. So it will me next may onlee. Unless she sets sailin mid October, in order to reach Mumbai by mid November.
