Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2013 11:14

Why not give the order to an Indian pvt yard and create capacity in the nation only. Why this fetish with a foriegn yard.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 08 Dec 2013 11:46

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2013 11:50

no complaints there. we need to look beyond the paltry few yards building warships (mdl, goa, hsl and grse).

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Dec 2013 12:35

Singha wrote:I am no expert, but really given our paltry number of principal combatants vs the IOR area, not equipping a next-gen ship like P28 for ASMs is not done. even the much smaller primitive ships like P25 carry 16xurans up front.
what if there is no submarine threat to hunt....does the P28 just sit there waiting for work or join its cousins in land attack/surface attack role? what if a lone P28 guarding some sector of Guj coast picks up 2 TSP missile corvettes heading to pound dwaraka?

even uran/harpoon is ok but something has to be there longer ranged than the main gun!

This is a topic that keeps coming back;

- Saryu class should have a ASW capability
- Kamorta class should have surface warfare capability
- Shivalik should have better anti air warfare capability

The main argument in favour of the current configuration is cost, both capex and opex as it is the weapon systems that account bulk of the costs. For a one size fits all solution, then only a DDG-51 is your solution. But navies around the world including those from NATO cannot afford to maintain 10s of such vessels. Even latest wiz-bang Type 45 DDGs in RN are not true multipurpose vessels. The exceptions are modern russian designs, which seem to pack a Kolkata class level fitment into corvette size ships!

Having said that, to solve our own requirements, we need to design a vessel accordingly. I believe that our fleet has a place for a small frigate size, multi-purpose vessel. A design that will eventually replace the Veer, Khurkri and Kora classes. These classes account was for as many as 20 ships.

The design should include organic ASW capability and quality self defence against aerial threats aside from Kh-35 launchers. On cost front, it should be smaller, cheaper than Shivalik class vessels. Propulsion could be CODAD. A sort of modern version of Godavari and Brahmaputra class. In Talwar class we already have a good benchmark, the only downside is that it is not 'Made in India'.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2013 16:09

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =17&t=2171

due to the persistent nature of the submarine threat I did some reading on how the retired specialized Spruance class ASW cruisers were proposed to be adapted for a more 24x7 of ASW escort role. the link above has various proposals on the same 9000t hull ... ranging from a bigger hanger for 4 SH60 (similar to haruna/shirane 3-heli concept), to a austere superstructure with both front and back flight decks for upto 8 helicopters , to a kashin type design with hanger below the flight deck. the last one is a mini-kiev class.

since 'proper' juan carlos type LHD are going to at most 4 in IN even after a long time, we should probably explore how we can take a stretched kolkata hull, remove the aft VLS array and move the aft mast a bit fwd and fit in 6-8 ASW helicopters into a capacious hangar for much better ASW support.

we can call it the Bahadur class DDH . specialized ASW ships meant to escort carriers or sanitize larger areas of ocean than a multirole ship.

in the stern and sides install a couple of HWT launchers , Klub asroc missile fwd of bridge and control station for towed sonar array and launch/recovery for UUV.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Dec 2013 16:14

singha ji, IN already has a policy of having 2 helos on every ship >3000 t. the russki made talwars are the only exception.

given the comparatively shorter legs of helos concentrating too many on one ship might not make all that sense IMHO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2013 17:08

while I agree about shorter legs, having a helo in the air with LWT+sonar surely beats having to wait 3 hrs for the P8I tasked elsewhere to show up. we are not japan with 100 P3 in the fleet and never will be unless 100 MRMP with ASW are laid in..which is not on the plan it seems.

the drawback of just 2 helis is these cannot maintain a 24x7 coverage of the broad area around a moving SAG. a couple of these "mini Moskva" might be better able to generate the sorties and uptime needed for a mobile protective screen that doesnt exhibit gaps. the enemy sub only needs to succeed once and a billion$ asset is sunk. better to keep them on backfoot.
eg japan haruna class DDH with 3 helis http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Hawaii.jpg
keep one gun in front, a VL launcher instead of the other gun for Klub ASW missiles , a mix of barak1 and uran cells instead of that SAM box ....make room for 4 helis....

the normal ships can keep their 2 helis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2013 19:15

Why not give the order to an Indian pvt yard and create capacity in the nation only. Why this fetish with a foriegn yard.

The "fetish" was on "quickly" and not where it got done.

seriously yantar or some other italian/spanish shipyard struggling with budget cuts might be willing to build P28/Saryu ships in bulk quickly for us under license.

why should GRSE grab all the P28 order?

Can Indian yards to it "quickly" - I do not know. But, if they can then a lot more power to them. Nothing like it.

And, while at it, economically too if possible.

John · Post by **John** » 08 Dec 2013 20:51

ABG built a couple PCV for CG in 3-4 years, which are about the size of P-28.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 08 Dec 2013 22:04

Many of the old vessels must be decommissioned. Better to remove them from service rather than make them as sitting ducks for attack during war time and also avoid accidents saving precious lives.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 08 Dec 2013 22:28

tsarkar wrote:HWT are there. Two per side, but mounted sideways. The second notch amidships ahead & below of first AK-630 shows the HWT TT launchers. Looks like there is a stern housing as well. Does someone have better pictures?

clicky

via http://www.aame.in/2013/12/indian-navy- ... royer.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2013 08:15

During the early decades of the last century,the British allegdly pulled off an intel coup by allowing the Germans to win the contract for Russian warships by sabotaging the bid of their own builder Vickers,using the legendary spy Sidney Reilly.Reilly with a Russian company,represented the German builders and thus obtained the blueprints of the latest German warships,passed onto Britain,which helped them at the Battle of Jutland.

This same strategy is being used by Russia with its supplies of weaponry to the Chinese,who never get the best,but always a level of sophistication below that of Russian units.Thus Russia is fully aware of the capabilities of much of the Chinese weapon systems,original or illegally reverse-engineered.If one observes,India always gets Russian weaponry a notch above that of the Chinese.An excellent method of keeping your enemy at a tech disadvantage while charging him for it too! Thus the Russians sell the Chinese Sunburns,but not Yakhonts,the BMos equiv.Their Kilos have inferior sensors too.Remember,the Russians are great chess players.

John · Post by **John** » 09 Dec 2013 10:11

Philip wrote:India always gets Russian weaponry a notch above that of the Chinese.An excellent method of keeping your enemy at a tech disadvantage while charging him for it too! Thus the Russians sell the Chinese Sunburns,but not Yakhonts,the BMos equiv.Their Kilos have inferior sensors too.Remember,the Russians are great chess players.

As much as i love to believe Russia is playing both sides... Actually China was offered Yakhont as well but rather than spend money on product that is not developed, it choose to go with Moskit and funded the improved variant. Vl-shtil, Rif-M all have been supplied to China with license production. Chinese Kilo is 636M variant which i don't know why you believe that is inferior we operate 877EKM which is a older variant.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Dec 2013 10:32

Don't know if this was reported elsewhere or not..hence posting here

Iranian warships visit Mumbai

NEW DELHI — Two Iranian warships and a submarine docked in Mumbai harbor Dec. 5 for a three-day goodwill visit, an Indian Navy official said.

The warships, including a destroyer, a helicopter-carrying tanker and a Kilo-class submarine, docked in the civil area of the Mumbai harbor and not in the area designated for the Indian Navy. The two Iranian warships and the Russian-built submarine are scheduled to proceed to Sri Lanka Dec. 7.

The last time Iranian Navy warships were in India was in 2009, and joint maneuvers were conducted in 2006.

Indo-Iran defense ties had been halted by the US-led sanctions against Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapon program.

The Iranian flotilla arrived in India at a time when there is an easing of tension between Iran andworld powers.

“After Tehran agreed to curb its disputed nuclear activity, India hopes to pump fresh impetus into Indo-Iran ties in trade and defense,” said Nitin Mehta, a defense analyst here. Oil accounts for 75 percent of Indo-Iranian trade.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has taken up stalled work on the development of Iran’s Chabahar port, which was halted after the UN imposed sanctions on Iran. India proposes to link the Chabahar port to Afghanistan, thus creating a trade link to Central Asia.

An official with the Indian Foreign Ministry said Chabahar is of utmost strategic interest to India. The port is just 72 kilometers west of Pakistan’s Gwadar port, which is being built by China.

India and Iran signed a historic strategic agreement in January 2003 under which India agreed to give hardware, training and maintenance facilities to Iranian forces in lieu of getting surety of Iranian space and facilities in the event of a war with Pakistan. The duration of the pact is not known.

member_28041 · Post by **member_28041** » 09 Dec 2013 19:44

John wrote:
Philip wrote:India always gets Russian weaponry a notch above that of the Chinese.An excellent method of keeping your enemy at a tech disadvantage while charging him for it too! Thus the Russians sell the Chinese Sunburns,but not Yakhonts,the BMos equiv.Their Kilos have inferior sensors too.Remember,the Russians are great chess players.
As much as i love to believe Russia is playing both sides... Actually China was offered Yakhont as well but rather than spend money on product that is not developed, it choose to go with Moskit and funded the improved variant. Vl-shtil, Rif-M all have been supplied to China with license production. Chinese Kilo is 636M variant which i don't know why you believe that is inferior we operate 877EKM which is a older variant.

Also the S-300 clones which china are producing like pan cakes.
Was not S-300 supplied by Russia which they cloned and is now offering to export?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 09 Dec 2013 23:27

Singha wrote:a couple of these "mini Moskva" might be better able to generate the sorties and uptime needed for a mobile protective screen that doesnt exhibit gaps.

Destroyer/Cruiser hulls are hydrodynamically unsuitable for aviation roles. The Vikramaditya has a cruiser hull, hence the superstructure is closer to the centerline, leaving space on the starboard beam.

As a BR forum moderator, you should be looking for answers here rather than Japan

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Imag ... shwa04.jpg

Note the six heavy duty Seakings? Amphibious ships have secondary ASW roles and can carry lots of aviation fuel. They can carry patrollers similar to IN/ICG WJFAC in their well deck that can race & pepper submarines with depth charges.

Another role is MCM, deploying landing craft with sweep gear. Both LPD & Landing Craft shallow draught is ideal for mineweeping.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2013 15:37

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2013 17:18

When we do not possess a suitable design,like specialised mine countermeasure vessels,which have been designed and are being built by a foreign yard,it is preferable that at least some of them are first built by that yard then built at home.We have paid a heavy price for not doing that with the Scorpene project,where MDL bit off more than they could chew and with our policy of no accountability for DPSUs ,and money on tap for cost overruns,which babudom can always justify,delays are the norm not the exception.

Our yards also which require extensive modernisation,do not have the expertise of yards of developed nations both west or east.Russia is building all her Mistral amphib vessels at home because she has earlier built amphib vessels and carriers too.All they require are the drawings and supervision.We have yet to perfect our act of modular shipbuilding for the DPSUs and unless the pt. yards are given enough orders beginning with smaller warships and auxiliaries,they will be bereft of experience of warship and sub building.L&T is the prime yard/company capable of sub building and was so evaluated by Rubin I think. However,if we look at the time taken for our DPSU yards to build warships (and I posted a media report on the same not too long ago,where it showed how it was more economical to get the same built abroad and in mush faster time too),delays mostly due to the cumbersome bureaucratic method of procurement of items,with the K series of DDGs and the P-17s being prime examples.Unless weapon systems are delivered on time and within budget to the services the very purpose of indigenisation and self-sufficiency is defeated with such incompetence.Delays lead to huge extra expenditure and obsolescence,especially in the case of warships which take years to build and whose sensors,systems and weaponry are not that easily upgraded as aircraft as they require extensive work in the dockyards.

This once again brings about the debate I've started on the Vikram td. about the future face of warships and the IN in particular.Today modular construction has allowed warships to carry large amounts of multifarious missiles thanks to VLS silos,universal silos too which allow several types to be fired from them.Extensive stealth shaping,multi-hull designs and use of composites topsides with conformal "smart masts",have eliminated the topside "heavy metal" clutter of designs of the 20th century.surface ships have started resembling the hulls of subs,if one looks at the USN's LCS designs.The days of specialised warships with roles such as anti-air,ASW,etc.,are coalescing,where any warship above a certain tonnage is expected to be able to deal with multiple threats. Of course larger vessels can carry larger weaponry and in more numerous rounds,and a min. size and powerplant is required for new DDGs which will feature rail guns and laser weaponry. The IN would do well to think well on the contours and capabilities of its future fleet architecture from 2020 onwards,especially concentrating on its sub fleet which is it weakest link.http://i2.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwor ... =550%2C366
PS:The Russians have developed the S-500 why they are willing to sell anyone the earlier S-300s.

PPS: Read this report on the quiet launch of the USN's latest DDG,the Zumwalt.Looking at it,it one could easily ask the Q,"ship or sub?" !

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... ron-works/
DDG 1000 Zumwalt Launched Without Fanfare At Bath Iron Works

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Dec 2013 06:39

X-Post...

Philip wrote:Some news about Chakra-3.According to some sources,the approval for the second Akula -2 took place in Oct. before the PM's visit to Russia and negotiations were supposedly "concluded".The unfinished Irbis is reportedly the sub ,which will be a more improved version,with VLS silos for BMos,apart from other improvements.The sub will take 3-4 years to complete,hopefully arriving by 2017-18.

With a proposal to extend the life of 6 Kilos also on the anvil,interim crisis management decisions appear to have been taken by the MOD in the wake of the SRakshak disaster.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 937834.ece

Defence Minister A K Antony on Monday told the Lok Sabha that the Centre was examining a Navy proposal to extend the service life of six of the 13 conventional submarines, even as it was processing a tender to select an agency for salvaging the INS Sindhurakshak that sunk in the Mumbai naval dockyard on August 14.

“The government had approved a submarine-building plan, which is being progressed. Further, a proposal for extending the service life of six submarines is also being examined,” Antony said in a written reply.

In late 1990s, India approved a 30-year plan to build 24 diesel-electric submarines to augment its submarine fleet strength. The first six submarines from Scorpene are under construction at the Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks, though there is a three-year delay in the delivery of the first submarine.

The government is processing a tender for the second line of six submarines, which too is delayed by two years now.

The Navy has proposed life extension for six Russian-built Kilo-class submarines. The INS Sindhurakshak had just returned from Russia after a refit programme when it suffered an internal explosion and sank.

On the salvage operation plans, Antony said the Board of Inquiry constituted to investigate the incident would submit its report to the Western Naval Command headquarters, following the salvation of the submarine and investigation of the vessel.

The Navy has carried out a safety audit of all its existing procedures for the storage and handling of weapons and damage-control procedures on board all of the 13 submarines and found them satisfactory.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2013 06:57

china seems to have taken a leaf from jalashwa book(austin class LPD) and their new class of ship looks very similar
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/type071.asp

sure if it works better than DDG hulls let us go for a class of these vessels. will be definitely cheaper than bigger ships like hyuga or juan carlos.
only issue might be how much speed they can sustain in concert with FFG/DDG units.

for the big new LPDs we are tendering for, I have an idea. the K4/K15 is a bit too large for any of our DDG ships as they are nearly 10+m long vs 6m of the brahmos/klub.
why not install some 12-16 VL tubes on foredeck of these ships, ahead of the hanger to provide a sea based platform to launch these weapons both in land attack and anti-carrier role. length will not be an issue. this will also mobilize our assets beyond just launching them from land and the limited nos of Arihant class(3).
http://www.defesabr.com/MB/Kuznetsov_Tubes.jpg
http://paralay.com/atakr/kusnetsov00.gif

even the nuova trenton sub hunters could mount some 8 of these / 8 brahmos fwd of the bridge. heh heh.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 11 Dec 2013 09:55

Wish the navy showed some sense of humour and got some big Neta to inaugurate the home coming of Vikramaditya, but instead used Vikrant for it.
Perhaps the only way of keeping Vikrant from shipbreakers

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2013 17:02

Singha,BMos' actual range is debatable,as the Yakhont with a larger warhead has a 500 km range.BY the same yardstick BMos would have a range of 500+ km at least. At greater ranges,even with the 300km range of Klub,real time surveillance and targeting becomes more difficult. If we we build larger sized vessels of 10-12,000t like the Slavas,and use flush decks,we could have 9m+ length missiles in VLS silos just as is seen on the Kuznetsov.In any case Nirbhay with a range of 1000km+ is under development which will definitely be seen aboard IN warships in the future.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Dec 2013 18:43

nirbhay is fine but too slow for ASBM role or striking the hard targets on land like OTH radar/missile storages which will have strong SAM/AA bubble.
the high deck level of LPD type ships vs DDG/FFG and greater internal volume due to wider beam offers us a chance to mount the K15/K4 in ASBM/LABM role from the surface units as well. I dont mean the big LPD ships tasked with amphib warfare but the smaller leaner trenton types taskes as ASW lead ships.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Dec 2013 21:13

<nirbhay is fine but too slow for ASBM role or striking the hard targets on land like OTH radar/missile storages which will have strong SAM/AA bubble.>

nifty tricks like on the fly mission planning might help. onboard ESM system to make last minute changes to flight path based on variety of stored options.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Dec 2013 23:17

Singha wrote:nirbhay is fine but too slow for ASBM role or striking the hard targets on land like OTH radar/missile storages which will have strong SAM/AA bubble.

Nirbhay is a loitering munition. It can go around and approach from behind. How can a Paki tell that its Nirbhay and not a own Babur overflying it on its way to India, until the last few moments when the missile starts diving?

When the shooting starts, Shourya & Prahaar will start taking out their missile sites. Nirbhay will loiter and take out any that pop up. Brahmos will be a fast reaction missile. Any missile that finally gets launched will be taken out by PAD/AAD.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2013 03:28

>>Nirbhay will loiter and take out any that pop up.

Problem is till date we havent seen it having either any onboard RF/IR sensor for independent acquisition (1)or any reference to NLOS/SATCOM datalink for allowing on the fly retargeting.

Yes, media reports state it can loiter. But that merely means that it could do so theoretically, not whether it has the complete sensor package to make use of it.

(1)A RF seeker for Brahmos/Nirbhay class missiles is under development. Not in production, yet. My estimate (assuming we didnt acquire Russian seekers/Brahmos seekers) is that Nirbhay will be put in service as a basic INS/satguided long range munition for fixed targets which uses mission planning to avoid likely threats. Future variants may be more sophisticated with onboard acquisition sensors.

If of course, Nirbhay uses Brahmos type seeker, your estimate may well be correct.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Dec 2013 16:45

Kartik wrote:Don't know if this was reported elsewhere or not..hence posting here

Iranian warships visit Mumbai

Perhaps it's time we board the vessels and hold hostage like they did to an Indian tanker in international waters, few months ago. IN might get tempted to keep hold of the Kilo

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Dec 2013 01:27

That issue is resolved. link

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 14 Dec 2013 08:25

Ikara

The above is a concept where light weight torpedos are delivered aerially, so can this be adapted with missiles assuming a Dornier MPA or a Kamov or a Sat constellation has detected a hostile sub a long way from the coast or an IN ship

With the recent demo of concrete penetrating Brahmos-1, maybe it can traverse the air-water interface at significant speed, which is like firing a bullet into water ballistics or is also characterized as similar to hitting concrete and so like in a tandem warhead design the first warhead which is the kinetic energy of Brahmos shatters the outer casing after it enters water and then the second warhead, the torpedo is released inside the water medium

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Dec 2013 12:57

India To Construct 4 LPDs

NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy has floated a US $2.6 billion domestic tender for construction of four landing platform docks (LPDs) and bids were sent to domestic shipyards, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering, and ABG Shipyard.

A senior Navy planner said the service will select a winning design based on the low bidder. State-owned Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL) then will build two LPDs based on that design and the winning company will build two.

This will be India’s first attempt to build the 20,000-ton vessels.

“The Indian Navy is in dire need of modernizing its amphibious capacity and enhancing its sea lift capability. Given its large island assets and the fact that India is emerging as a security provider and guarantor in the Indian ocean region [which has many island nations], the need of amphibious assets cannot be understated. The addition of four LPDs is hence an instrument in the fulfillment of India’s growing strategic role,” said Probal Ghosh, senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation

To build the LPDs in India, Larsen & Toubro has tied up with Navantia of Spain, while Pipavav Defence has teamed with France’s DCNS and ABG Shipyard has partnered with Alion of the US.

Limiting involvement to only domestic shipyards, despite having no experience in building LPDs, is welcomed by analysts.

“This is an extremely wise decision; LPDs are relatively less sophisticated than high-end destroyers and provide a perfect opportunity for domestic private industry to upgrade their skills in warship construction. Private shipyards which have made huge investments in developing modern state-of-the-art shipyards will be able to prove their credentials for undertaking larger and more sophisticated projects,” said Anil Jai Singh, retired Indian Navy commodore and defense analyst.

The LPD tender states the ship should be no more than 215 meters long and have a draft not to exceed 8 meters, in full load conditions. The ship will be powered by electric propulsion systems and have an endurance of 45 days with a maximum sustained speed of not less than 20 knots.

The LPD would operate a combination of landing craft, including landing craft mechanized to ferry tanks; landing craft, vehicle, personnel to transport troops; and the fast-moving landing craft air cushion vessels.

The LPD should be able to carry six main battle tanks, 20 infantry combat vehicles and 40 heavy trucks.

The ship also should be equipped with a point defense missile system, the close-in weapon system, an anti-torpedo decoy system, a chaff system, and heavy and light machine guns.

Special operation helicopters and large helicopters, up to 35 tons, will operate from the ship.

The LPD should be able to accommodate 1,430 personnel, including 60 officers, 470 sailors and 900 troops.

The ship would be able to conduct maritime surveillance, special operations, search and rescue, medical support and humanitarian aid.

India’s only operational LPD, the former USS Trenton now renamed as INS Jalashwa, was acquired in 1997 and can carry 900 troops, six tanks, 2000 tons of stores, four landing craft and six helicopters, and has a range of 7,700 kilometers at 20 knots.

Jalashwa has a seaworthy life of about 15 years since its commissioning in 2007.

Apart from Jalashwa, the Navy operates three Shardul-class tank landing ships, and four Polnochny-class landing ships.

“Indian Navy’s current amphibious warfare capability, though not inadequate, lacks adequate strategic reach. Four LPDs and Jalashwa would go a long way in addressing this deficit,” says Singh.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Dec 2013 13:03

India To Train Vietnamese Sailors, Expand Ties

NEW DELHI — India will train Vietnamese sailors in submarine warfare as part of its effort to reinforce defense ties with countries across the Asia-Pacific region.

The development is expected to disturb Beijing, analysts and officials said, and will be closely watched by Pakistan.

<snip>

India has also decided to give a $100 million credit line to Vietnam to buy military equipment, including offshore patrol vessels, an Indian Defence Ministry source said, but a deal hasn’t been formalized.

The extension of military credit would be the first India has given to any country.

nash · Post by **nash** » 14 Dec 2013 13:52

pankajs wrote:India To Construct 4 LPDs

Nice initiative, but hopefully it should get implemented smoothly and by end of 2020-22 we will have 4 LPDs.

By looking at dimension it will be in b/w mistral and juan carlos.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2013 13:55

Navy's UAV crashes due to technical snag

December 13, 2013 22:24 IST

An unmanned aerial vehicle of the Indian Navy, used for monitoring the sea off Ramanathapuram coast, crashed into a coconut grove near Ramanathapuram on Friday.

Naval Commander Abhijit Bhargattagi said the UAV, named Search 922, crashed while returning after several sorties due to some technical snag.

All parts of the UAV had been collected, he said, and described it as a big loss for the navy. It was used for monitoring the entire coast and for spying also, he said. An inquiry would be ordered into the crash, he added.

A woman residing in the grove, fainted after hearing the sound of the crash and she was treated as an out-patient. The woman said she heard a deafening noise and the UAV crashed in the grove, just 10 feet from her house.

Two helicopters of INS Parundu naval air station had crashed three months ago due to technical snag at Puduvalasai and Mukundharayar Chattiram near. A balloon of the navy examining weather conditions also crashed on Thursday.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2013 14:34

probably a heron, hopefully a searcher (smaller/less expensive).

in some good news - rustom 1 to go into production per service demand (searcher 2 equivalent). heron eqvt (rustom 2) still several (2-3) years off so herons it is till then.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2013 16:09

The weapons for the lpd has to be decided by the navy. So that, the ships are quickely commissioned.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 14 Dec 2013 22:02

From Rediff:

19:44 BJP urges CM to rethink on auctioning INS Vikrant: The state BJP today appealed the Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan to rethink his stand on INS Vikrant, which is set to be auctioned off as scrap.

"Chavan should withdraw his resolve to sell the ship in scrap. He should understand people's sentiments associated with Vikrant," BJP leader Kirit Somaiya said.

He said in December 2001, the then Defence Minister George Fernandes had stated that Maharashtra government had shown interest in preserving Vikrant as a maritime museum, but the state failed to go ahead with the proposal.

Somaiya said he had discussions with senior BJP leader Gopinath Munde and Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on the issue.

member_28305 · Post by **member_28305** » 15 Dec 2013 00:11

Hiten wrote:
tsarkar wrote:HWT are there. Two per side, but mounted sideways. The second notch amidships ahead & below of first AK-630 shows the HWT TT launchers. Looks like there is a stern housing as well. Does someone have better pictures?
clicky

via http://www.aame.in/2013/12/indian-navy- ... royer.html

Whats that Erected Platform in between the RBUs???

I suppose its not a SAM launcher, as she uses VLS.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 15 Dec 2013 16:39

sibyt wrote:Whats that Erected Platform in between the RBUs???

Firewall.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2013 18:56

Yes, no more orders to Russia.One supposes that the very successful Talwars, 6 of them were built in the US apart from the Rajputs which have served for decades! As far as I recollect the ex -Trenton,with sick Sea Kings and which killed some of our sailors is our US built rustbucket.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Dec 2013 19:19

^^INS Jalashwa as it is called in IN.