Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Eric Leiderman » 25 Jun 2014 20:41

Singha ji
"the costliest and long lifetime (ie continuous cost to keep in good shape) parts of warships would be
- engines - we neither make marine diesels or gas turbines
- gearboxes - elecon of pune makes renk gearboxes under license, but I guess there is no indigenous maker"

It would seem that you are referring to Lifetime/maintanence cost
a) A gear box is mantainence free as long as it is installed right and you lubricate it well RENK is the best OEM for gearboxes around and their stuff usually outlasts the vessel with negligible mantainence.
b) A diesel engine needs overhaul after 25 K hrs (usually) cost approx. $50,000 per engine
of which 35K will be (western) manpower costs , This reoccurring cost will manifest itself every 8-10 years. Gas turbines I will let the gurus answer that as my knowledge is superficial.

VikB
BRFite
Posts: 340
Joined: 29 Jun 2009 10:02
Location: Mumbai/Delhi
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VikB » 25 Jun 2014 20:59

so does INS Kamorta has only RBU 6000 rockets? no torpedo?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Jun 2014 21:04

Kamorta, does carry RBu 6000, Heeayweight torpedos plys Helicopter wwith ligweight torpedo fr anti sub operations

VikB
BRFite
Posts: 340
Joined: 29 Jun 2009 10:02
Location: Mumbai/Delhi
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VikB » 25 Jun 2014 21:07

thanks Aditya. just checked wiki. my bad. wiki aunty says club missiles also

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5205
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby jamwal » 25 Jun 2014 21:10

Is there no development of Kaveri as engine for warships ?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 25 Jun 2014 21:11

Philip wrote:Read the rest of the report.What was the ultimate cost of a Talwar in comparison to anything similar from the west or built in India?


The cost of the Talwar class was about $1.6 billion in 2006. That's $530M each or about $630M at today's prices.

Shivalik class costed Rs 2600 crore each including developing cost. That's between $500M and $700M depending on the time-frame in which the funds were disbursed.

The fact that the Shivalik's original budget was about Rs 1,000 crore doesn't make the Talwar more affordable. Especially since the Shivalik offers a 50% higher displacement (and proportionate capability) and employs better tech to boot.

They were found to be excellent warships and a second order was placed,which if it had been before a deadline,would've cost even less-reportedly at the same price as the first 3,but babudom delayed the decision.


The Shivaliks were found to be 'excellent warships' as well.

Where was this 'reported' cost that claimed the Krivak III program had managed to nullify inflation? Because the only report I have seen claims that the follow-on Talwars are priced at $1 billion each.

No one is denying that its great building our warships and subs at home,but how do we do it?


Very simple. Don't pour billions into Russian shipyards. Buy more Shivaliks, P-17As, P-15As even more Scorpenes. Involve private shipyards to increase capacity.

Plus,as Singha has mentioned,how much is just the "empty vessel" and how much indigenous systems? Stealth tech has even been obtained from Canada.


What proportion of the Talwar class is indigenous? Do you think the employing foreign suppliers makes the ship non-Indian? And will the project of indigenization be served by abandoning 'partially-Indian' ships in favour of 'all-Russian' ships?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 25 Jun 2014 21:23

VikB wrote:thanks Aditya. just checked wiki. my bad. wiki aunty says club missiles also

We discussed it to death about Club i been saying it for what 5 years but some people refuse to believe it and they are the ones editing wiki :lol:

As for Shivalik cost the cost run up was because of the fact that it uses more western equipment especially the GE turbines which even contributed to delay (Obama holding things up) and has far better design to reduce radar cross section. Not to mention it has an additional RBU-6000, EL/M-2238 which costs more than Fregat radar and a much larger design. IMO if we stuck with original Talwar design it would have come out cheaper but we got req creep and ended up with vessel that is as big Delhi class.

Singha, china license builds Pielsticks as well and their main gun for their FFG are based on French 100mm gun.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8095
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby nachiket » 25 Jun 2014 21:56

John wrote:... IMO if we stuck with original Talwar design it would have come out cheaper but we got req creep and ended up with vessel that is as big Delhi class.

And despite that it only carries half the number of AShM's as the Delhi class. What's the point in being big if the firepower does not increase proportionately?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 25 Jun 2014 22:02

Well 8 Klub missiles and vls module weights more than 16 Uran missile and inclined launcher, apart from that changes made to design to reduce radar cross section (enclosed mast, superstructure) increases weight. Plus there is limitations to the base talwar design no room to add additional VLS or Shtil module amidship or by the aft.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 398
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby titash » 26 Jun 2014 02:20

nachiket wrote:
John wrote:... IMO if we stuck with original Talwar design it would have come out cheaper but we got req creep and ended up with vessel that is as big Delhi class.

And despite that it only carries half the number of AShM's as the Delhi class. What's the point in being big if the firepower does not increase proportionately?


A lot of the Shivalik's benefits aren't obvious at first glance; the Delhi class is a 70's/80's design bristling with weaponry and will light up every radar in the neighborhood :-)

(1) Significantly increased survivability due to significantly reduced radar/sonar signature
(2) Longer ranged + heavier warhead + supersonic Klub cruise missiles as opposed to lightweight Uran
(3) Much cheaper to run (Diesels vs. GT for cruise...which will be 99% of a warship's lifetime). This probably translates to longer range and lower maintenance costs as well
(4) Have you seen pics of the bridge and CIC? The Shivaliks are 2-3 generations ahead, and their CMS-17 combat system is supposed to enable cooperative engagement capability & control the weapons fired by other ships

The only thing that the Shivaliks apparently are worse off is in AAW...the Delhi has 2x launchers/48 SAMs with 6 channels of fire. the Shivaliks have 1x launcher/24 SAMs with 4 channels of fire. BUT keep in mind that the main radar is Top Plate as opposed to Half Plate, and the SAM is the more modern SA-N-12 as opposed to SA-N-7.


With respect to the Talwars, the Shivaliks are significantly superior in ASW (Better Sonars + 2x Sea Kings + 2x RBU-6000 vs. 1x Kamov + 1x RBU-6000), range/endurance, life cycle costs, and point air defence. It's designed with Indian requirements in mind from the keel up. Pretty much every frigate/destroyer designed in India can carry 2x Sea Kings unlike most russian ships

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Jun 2014 02:42

No one is saying that the Talwars are better warships than the Shivaliks.They are smaller vessels,frigates,while the Talwars are really destroyer size.They were obtained cheap and quick,that's the point.Thanks to babudom,delay in decisionmaking for the second lot saw the price of those rise with inflation.The excellent though dated Krivak hull was modified to pack in a very powerful punch within the limitations of size.Compare the Talwar's size with western equivalents.Unfortunately,our excellent designs-Delhis,Shivaliks,etc.,come with the handicap of inevitable delays,cost overruns,etc.,and the reasons have been well spelt out.Fundamentally poor management by the MOD and the yards,with our procurement policy archaic,resulting in delays.The best/worst example is the Scorpene project.

The second point is what % of key components is indigenous? It's already been listed out.The key components from weaponry,sensors and propulsion aren't indigenous.Even some of the special steel has to be imported,though we seem to have developed our own alternatives as of now.Sometimes the weaponry decision is left pending unlike what usually happens with a totally foreign buy where the full specs are ordered.This has happened as far back as the Brahmaputra FFGs which took 10 yrs. to build and appeared with no SAM at all.This also results in delays.B-8 delays affecting the current warships waiting to be finished.One can't also understand why the Vik-A was delivered without any air defences either.An upgrade could've been carried out at a later refit. The criticism of the IN's methodology by the CAG must be read.Unrealistic costing methodology,resulting in "mega price escalation in key projects".

The Indian Navy’s projects have come under scanner for its substantial time and cost overruns before. In a Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report earlier this year, Indian Navy’s methodology for estimating the cost of ships came under severe criticism. The CAG report indicated that the methodology has resulted in unrealistic approvals for funding projects with every likelihood of cost growth at the time of project itself. In fact, it has even resulted in reduced naval force levels and mega price escalation in its key projects


PS:Yes,the key feature of our indigenous designs,as far back as the G class,was the ability to carry 2 Sea Kings on a small hull.However,in practice this is seldom done as there aren't enough ASW helos.There is an acute shortage of ASW/multi-role helos for the IN,which if you simply count the number of air capable warships and those in the pipeline/planned,will require 80+ medium sized helos including the carriers.The P-15B design is supposed to have larger hangars to carry helos larger than Sea Kings.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Jun 2014 07:13

while we love to go on a muharram regarding imported content, all the cheen 'cloning' and 'pindigenous' development are mostly the product of hidden license agreements or buying up entire design teams in rus/ukr as offshore turnkey product delivery and improvement sites under NDAs. when we say Rus was 'placated' by paying more than needed for vikky or france extracted a massive price for the scorpene, one can be sure Cheen is 'placating' Rus/Ukr by a factor of 1:5 given their expenditure levels and opaque budgets and the flood of new kit & projects we are seeing. under terms of NDA rus/ukr bleat loudly about this cloning, yet the cycle repeats year after year, usually from 2nd gen onward the cloned product has some derivative inputs and local content also...gradual sinification. cheen recruited lots of ex-USSR engineers from early 90s itself when we were short of cash and political babus hemmed and hawed at bearing their chai pani expenses. to this day only the nominally independent brahmos corp & N-sub proj is allowed to site russian specialists here as needed.

ultimately a lot depends on how much money one is willing to throw at it. mistakes are always there, but ppl like cheen and khan throw enough money so that 2 major success covers for 8 failures...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2014 08:38

Buying designs is one thing. They are not going to buy R&D. As a result either china will get stuck or will make progress in fits and starts.

Until they/we build a grounds-up R&D there will never be a smooth progression. Cannot be.

Meanwhile we will have plenty to talk about time-lines not being met, project over-runs, prohibitive costs, etc. Par for the course.

I much prefer what India has done To whatever extent India has/is building the foundation - something that should have been done in the past 60 years.

Ludakthe, ludakthe shall reach.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 26 Jun 2014 09:03

China Main gun is H/PJ38 130mm Gun designed by general designer Chen Dingfeng. The gun can fire regular shells, sub-caliber munitions, missiles and PGMs. The Gun is better than the 100mm Russian Guns available.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Jun 2014 09:15

Nrao, as mentioned they are in fact buying R&D in terms of recruiting engineers from eastern europe to work in china or as offshore teams.
I suspect many of the ukr/rus/belarus design bureaus make money on the side doing project work for cheen, apart from their own OEM branded product...kind of like ASUS sells its own laptops while supplying motherboards to all, or sony with its imaging sensors.
the WZ-10 it came out later was designed by Kamov to a chinese contract. no doubt they deputed ppl to help with the IOC and FOC as well :)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... -for-China

Sergei Mikheyev, General Designer of the Kamov Design Bureau, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Hero of the Russian Federation dropped the proverbial bombshell at Heli-Expo here in Las Vegas this afternoon.

Saving the best to last in a briefing to update a series of Kamov programs, Mikheyev told an astonished crowd that China’s Z-10/WZ-10 attack helicopter was actually designed in great secrecy under contract for China by Kamov. Dubbed Project 941, the concept was initially designed in 1995 and developed by China into the WZ-10/Z-10.
After Kamov completed the design, the Russian design bureau verified the design via testing. Kamov then delivered the design to China and the Project 941 concept was accepted by that country's government for further development, he says. Kamov did not participate in any further developmental work on the WZ-10, he insists.


Thereafter, to the country's credit, Mikheev says, the Chinese handled the rest of the developmental work. That includes the developmental prototypes and the operational aircraft that is currently in production for the Chinese military.
"So I wish success to the helicopter," Mikheev says.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jun 2014 09:30

Chinis were high up on local design/indiginous scale from decades due to sanctions from Western/Eastern nation till early 90's , So even though their product were 2 Gen behind the lastest western system , they were indiginous/reverse engineered type and could be made in mass scale.

Post 90's when their economy grew in double digit they could throw money get entire systems from Roosi and Western dual use system on mass scale since then there is no looking back for Chini their Economy grew at massive scale so was their Defense Budget. They are also very practical in their approach try to get what they can and dont wait for N system when N-1 is available

Their commercial exploits in manuf is also seen defense where they tend to work on multiple project and mass produce it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jun 2014 10:36

Indian Navy puts out tender for submarine batteries

The Indian Navy (IN) has invited bids by 18 July for 2,786 Type I and Type II batteries for its fleet of nine Russian 'Kilo'-class and four German Type 209/1500 SSK submarines.

The 6 June tender for seven sets of 1,737 Type I batteries for its Type EKM 877 'Kilo' variants and two sets of 1,080 Type II batteries for the Type 209 submarines is aimed at making up shortages and replenishing reserves.

Since 2005 IN submarine battery purchases have been stymied by bureaucratic procurement procedures and a complex and time-consuming legal system, which became involved after local powerpack suppliers resorted to litigation to press their claims.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19836
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Jun 2014 11:06

^^ Another Antony success story

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 26 Jun 2014 11:13

^ Battery delays since 2005? Whoa.....
It seems that U-209 reliability and up-time is better than Kilo, despite being older....Last Kilo inducted in 2000s, and already news reports of various problems.....maybe German engineering at work here?

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby merlin » 26 Jun 2014 12:11

Karan M wrote:^^ Another Antony success story


All part of the plan to increase the confidence of the enemy. A true defense minister of Pakistan.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Jun 2014 13:21

Kilo batteries were replaced with indigenous ones.No idea if the U-boats too had similar replacements and what upgrades in recent times have been done as planned earlier,with AIP ,etc.An analysis why we are in sh*t street with our sub fleet.The combination of the "Saint" and Babudom over the last decade has wreaked havoc.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub ... 31110.aspx
Submarines: How The Indian Ocean Was Lost

November 10, 2013: Desperate to do something to improve its rapidly declining submarine force, India is now talking to German manufacturers about upgrading the four German subs in Indian service so these boats can fire Harpoon anti-ship missiles. India also wants to upgrade the 48 AEG-SUT Mod-1 heavy torpedoes that (in addition to naval mines) arm the German U209 subs India owns. There is also a search for someone to supply towed sonar arrays for 16 Indian surface ships. India has delayed upgrading submarine detection equipment on these ships and now seeks to make up for that, and then some, by obtaining towed sonar array gear, which is the most effective submarine detection equipment available for surface ships.

The process of buying torpedo upgrades and towed sonar arrays is not so simple in a place like India. Consider some of the recent problems that have been encountered while trying to build six French Scorpene submarines (under license) in India. The problems are usually caused by poor management or politics. An example of this occurred earlier this year with the departure of 10 Spanish technical advisors for the Scorpenes. Their contract expired at the end of March and, despite the expiration date being well known, Indian bureaucrats were unable to get a new contract in place on time. Similar avoidable delays have occurred several times already and the price has gone up with each delay. In 2012 it was announced that the first Scorpene sub would not be ready until 2015, because of similar screw-ups. The new delays push that to 2017. The hulls of all six Scorpenes have been completed, but filling those subs up with all the necessary equipment is an even more difficult task, in large part because India insists that some of that equipment be manufactured in India, and that introduces even more complications and delays. Indian firms have a spotty track record in this area.

The overall plan was to have a dozen new subs in service by the end of the decade. At present, there will be (with a bit of luck) three or four of them in service by then. The procurement bureaucracy is still seeking a supplier for the second batch of six diesel-electric subs. This second six probably won’t even begin arriving by the end of the decade. It's hard to say, although the defense procurement nabobs speak of "fast tracking" this project, but long-time observers are not expecting speed.

There's some urgency to all this because five of India's 16 diesel-electric subs (10 Kilo, 2 Foxtrot class Russian built boats, and 4 German Type 209s) were to be retired (some are already semi-retired because of age and infirmity) by 2013. But because of the Scorpene delays, the Type 209s (which entered service between 1987 and 1994) are being kept in service (but not allowed out to sea much) for several more years, and some upgrades are being considered to keep these boats operational into the 2020s. Because the 2 elderly Foxtrots are in really bad shape India will only have 14 subs for the next few years (until the first Scorpenes are ready). Several of the older Kilos will reach retirement age because of old age or accidents in the next few years. One Kilo did have an explosive accident recently and was a total loss. Thus, by the time the first Scorpene arrives in 2017, India will only have 5 or 6 working subs unless some of the elderly but still operational ones can get some quick refurbishment. But India wants to do more of this weapons related work in India. The experience to date is that when that approach is used things always take much longer to do and the work is often sloppy. India believes it needs at least 18 non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China but soon only about half that number will be available.

India is also building and buying nuclear subs. India received a Russian Akula nuclear attack (SSN) sub last year. This one is on lease with the option to buy. Now India is seeking to lease/purchase another Akula. Indian SSNs and SSBNs (missile carrying boats) are under development, as they have been for decades. With the usual delays this is taking longer than in the West (or Russia and China). Part of the solution is the insistence on building the Scorpene subs in India. This will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines. All that will be wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials already caused numerous delays and cost overruns during negotiations to build these diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is now five years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started. The delays and mismanagement have so far increased the cost of the $4 billion project by 25 percent (to $834 million per sub).

The original plan was to have the first Indian built Scorpene delivered at the end of 2012. But now, because of problems getting the construction facilities and skilled workmen ready, the first Scorpene won't be delivered until 2017, with one each year after that until all six are delivered. That schedule is subject to change and probably will, for the worse. The Scorpene project has been typical of how defense projects are mismanaged in India. After the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade, in 2005 India finally signed a deal to buy six French Scorpene class boats. The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components and India has had some problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. While some problems were expected (India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades), the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work or just getting in the way.

The Scorpenes are similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan recently bought. The first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in Pakistan. The Scorpenes purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation between French and Spanish sub builders. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried). The Scorpene is a little heavier (1,700 tons), has a smaller crew (32), and is a little faster. It has six 533mm torpedo tubes and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). Two of the Indian Scorpenes are to have Indian made AIP installed. That will cause further delays because the Indian AIP is encountering technical and bureaucratic problems.

While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani Agosta boats, both because of less advanced technology and less well trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to expand their naval presence into the Indian Ocean. Thus the delays and cost overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. At the rate India is going, it will be over a decade of construction before all six of the Scorpenes are in service. At that point India would have about a dozen subs (including nuclear powered models under construction). China will have over 60 boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear. China does have a lot for its warships to deal with off its coasts and in the Western Pacific but it does retain the capability of putting more subs off the Indian coast than the Indian Navy can.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Jun 2014 13:36

Our 8 LRMP/ASW Bear bombers could be effectively use d in this role too-their original task,as LR strategic bombers.I've mentioned this possibility earlierThis report on how Russia is still using them effectively with LR cruise missiles should be studied by the IN and strat. forces ,as we possess no strat. bomber whatsoever.Some years ago there was the plan to acquire backfires from Russia. It never happened.Once the entire lot of P-8s arrive,there will be less pressure upon the Bears in the LRMP role,and tasking them with a dual strat. bombing role would be of definite advantage to our strat. forces. There are numerous TU-142s mothballed in Russia should we also need a few extra.Though they do require extra maintenance,their range and endurance is unmatched by anything we possess,capable of flying to S.Africa and back without refuelling.Armed with Nirbhay and in the future hyper-BMos,the Bears could be deadly in the IOR,Indo-China Sea and the Pacific.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htair ... 40623.aspx
Warplanes: Bears Go Nuclear

June 23, 2014: In early June four Russian Tu-95 heavy bomber armed with cruise missiles flew down the west coast of Alaska and two of them kept going until they were off the coast of California. This was apparently another training mission. The bombers were on American radar all the way and were escorted some of the way by two F-22s and later two F-15s. This was not a unique incident.

Russia continues its decade old program of putting Cold War era heavy bombers back in service and having some of their training flights take them near the west coast of North America. This was what these aircraft did during the Cold War, when the mission was to be in the air, off the North American coast when the order was issued to launch their cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

The Tu-95 aircraft (called "the Bear" in the West) entered service in 1956 with the MS model appearing in 1981. Many existing Tu-95s are expected to remain in service, along with the Tu-142 variant, into the 2030s. The Tu-142 was introduced in the 1970s as the maritime patrol version, but the Tu-95 was used for this duty as well. Over 500 Tu-95s were built, and it is the largest and fastest turboprop aircraft in service. Russia still maintains a force of 50 Tu-95MSs (originally designed as a missile carrying version), and fifteen Tu-142s. There are dozens of Tu-95s in storage, which can be restored to service as either a bomber or a Tu-142.

The 188 ton aircraft has flight crew consisting of a pilot, copilot, engineer and radioman, and an unrefueled range of 15,000 kilometers. Max speed is 925 kilometers an hour, while cruising speed is 440 kilometers an hour. Originally designed as a nuclear bomber, the Tu-95MS is designed to carry four or more large cruise (three ton) missiles. These aircraft are getting more expensive to maintain. Old age is particularly cruel and in the 1990s cracks were found in the wings of some very old Tu-95s. Those aircraft were scrapped and all other carefully examined. Like all old aircraft, Tu-95/142s undergo constant inspection for age related problems.

While Russia has not introduced any new bombers since the Cold War ended in 1991, they have continued to turn out new cruise missiles. One of these missiles was the Kh-102, a stealthy development of the Cold War era Kh-55. The Kh-102 had been in development for nearly two decades, but most work was halted in the 1990s because of money shortages. In 2002 there were reports that work had been resumed. Then in 2007 some appeared, hanging from a Tu-95MS.

The Kh-102 began as upgrades of the Cold War era Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missile. Then in 2007 a major upgrade, the Kh-555, appeared. This missile is six meters (19.8 feet), weighs 1.6 tons, and has a range of 3,000 kilometers. The 364 kg (800 pound) conventional warhead appears to be a cluster bomb type (carrying bomblets). The missile uses inertial and satellite supplied guidance and can hit within six meters of its aiming point. Russia says it will use these missiles to attack terrorist bases in foreign countries. There was also a nuclear version, but this does not appear to be in regular service.

The Kh-102 has a new shape, and a radar absorbing skin that makes it more difficult for radar to detect it. Otherwise, the Kh-102 weighs 2.3 tons, but has the range and payload of the Kh-555. The Kh-102 (and the non-nuclear Kh-101) were supposed to be in service by 2013 but it’s unclear if that happened yet. Apparently, the Kh-102 isn't going to replace Kh-555 missiles but complement them, at least until the Kh-555s are too old to maintain and are retired. That's a process that could take a decade or more. The Kh-101/2 is also meant to give Russia a cruise missile comparable to the current American Tomahawk.

Currently, Tu-160 and Tu-95MS heavy bombers are equipped to carry a dozen Kh-555 or Kh-102 cruise missiles each.
The new fighters would apparently carry one or two of them.


From the report one can see that Bear can carry a dozen 3000km N-tipped missiles.Just compare that capability with our ATV,the Arihant which can carry only 4 K-4 missiles of similar range. making use of our Bears and acquiring another 4-8 would give the IN a massive LR bomber capability with such stand-off missiles.This is exactly what Adm.Greenert,the USN's CNO meant about the "payload centric " instead of the "platform centirc" approach,using "bomb trucks" to perform certain tasks instead of "luxury cars".

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 26 Jun 2014 15:06

For Type 209 project, the Germans transferred battery technology to Indian firms, and later developments by India was used with good effect on the Kilo.(Is it just me, or whatever conventional capability we had in the 1980s, we are just about getting it back now? :( People digging deep are finding stuff like "full ToT took place at the time") Russia and Vietnam had also imported batteries from India for use on subs...the article mentions legal dispute with indian firms.

DRDO please conduct proper research on battery technology, some new subs like S. Korea's Type 209 variant have 2-3 times the range due to Li-ion battery (no AIP system required)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jun 2014 15:49

I read the battery part was working quite well for more than a decade and half and was made by SF for Type-209 and Kilo , The problem came when another indian company came into the picture and pitched in its own product with lower cost , Since we have L1 tender SF lost in the bargain and then the bureaucratic red tape delayed the affair from 2005 , due to threat of litigation etc.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jun 2014 16:23

dinesh_kumar wrote:For Type 209 project, the Germans transferred battery technology to Indian firms, and later developments by India was used with good effect on the Kilo.


I dont think the Germans transferred any technology on battery ,The Indian Navy worked with local firm who could develop a battery that were good to replace the Kilo battery that were underpowered for Indian Ocean condition and were found to be good to replace the HDW battery too.

Its mostly an Indian Navy effort to indiginious the battery with effort from Indian companies.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 27 Jun 2014 09:05

Indian navy Sindhurakshak (S63) salvaged at Mumbai Harbour


Image

Image

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Jun 2014 11:21

are you sure? it looks totally hull intact...what happened to the devastating explosion?
it looks like another kilo with rubber tiles removed and waiting for the ship that will ferry it to russia.

afaik the Srakshak salvage contract has not been signed yet.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby srai » 27 Jun 2014 11:43

With the IN's submarine situation, it would be a worthwhile effort to purchase 3 x new Kilo SSKs (delivered within the next 3 years) as a stop gap measure on top of deep structural overhaul of remaining Kilos to keep them in service for another 15 years.

Plus, go for another 2 to 3 more leased Akula SSNs with an option to buy.

IMO, second line of 6 x P-75A should be based on Scorpene SSK with some additional customizations, such as indigenous AIP, Sonars, C4, and weapons (Brahmos-3 SSM and heavyweight torpedoes). This would be a better reuse of skill sets acquired from the Scorpene project.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 27 Jun 2014 13:33

95% sure its sindhurakshak

also it is out of water

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 689277.cms

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Jun 2014 14:23

as mentioned they are in fact buying R&D in terms of recruiting engineers from eastern europe to work in china or as offshore teams.


That is buying old and perhaps outdated information. Not R&D.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Jun 2014 14:24

nachiket wrote:
John wrote:... IMO if we stuck with original Talwar design it would have come out cheaper but we got req creep and ended up with vessel that is as big Delhi class.

And despite that it only carries half the number of AShM's as the Delhi class. What's the point in being big if the firepower does not increase proportionately?


Well are you comparing club with URAN here?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Jun 2014 14:25

Singha wrote:are you sure? it looks totally hull intact...what happened to the devastating explosion?
it looks like another kilo with rubber tiles removed and waiting for the ship that will ferry it to russia.

afaik the Srakshak salvage contract has not been signed yet.


You cant see the other side of the sub

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Viv S » 27 Jun 2014 15:48

Philip wrote:No one is saying that the Talwars are better warships than the Shivaliks.They are smaller vessels,frigates,while the Talwars are really destroyer size.They were obtained cheap and quick,that's the point.Thanks to babudom,delay in decisionmaking for the second lot saw the price of those rise with inflation.The excellent though dated Krivak hull was modified to pack in a very powerful punch within the limitations of size.Compare the Talwar's size with western equivalents.Unfortunately,our excellent designs-Delhis,Shivaliks,etc.,come with the handicap of inevitable delays,cost overruns,etc.,and the reasons have been well spelt out.Fundamentally poor management by the MOD and the yards,with our procurement policy archaic,resulting in delays.The best/worst example is the Scorpene project.


Shivaliks are not only better warships they deliver more capability per dollar spent.

The Shivaliks cost rose because of delays and cost overruns i.e. MoD's fault (not the Russians who delayed on supplying steel and weapons). Delays and cost escalations with the Talwars... also the Indian MoD's fault. The Russians apparently can do no wrong.

With the design having matured, follow-on orders for the Shivaliks could have been delivered in far shorter time-frame; three additional Shivaliks by 2015 was quite doable.

The Indian MoD is indeed at fault - its allowed the Indian taxpayer to be milked by the Russian industry even at the cost of our domestic programs.

The second point is what % of key components is indigenous? It's already been listed out.The key components from weaponry,sensors and propulsion aren't indigenous.


And the rebuttal as usual is... what percentage of the Talwar is Indian (never mind 'key components')?

Developing and building the Shivalik improves domestic capabilities (yes even with 'key components' being imported).

PS:Yes,the key feature of our indigenous designs,as far back as the G class,was the ability to carry 2 Sea Kings on a small hull.However,in practice this is seldom done as there aren't enough ASW helos.


As and when ASW helos are acquired (over the next decade if need be) can a second one be 'accommodated' on the Talwar?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21042
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Jun 2014 10:24

What is the huge capability diff between the "L'ks and the Tals? Same SAM,same anti-ship missiles,now BMos the diff. when installed,same TTs.It's the extra ASW helo and better stealth features.The warship did use Russian help in the design stage,integrating the Russian weaponry.But the key point being made , backed up by the reports is that our DPSUs delay constantly at just building hulls,making it difficult for the IN to maintain warfighting capability,resulting in imports,the hard truth.If you really want to get ripped off,just take a look at costs of equiv. western warships and compare them with what w paid for the Talwars.If we have a decent warfighting capability,please acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of Russian manufacturers over decades,who never imposed sanctions land f'd up the LCA ike massa Sam. Take a good hard look at what a Littoral Combat Ship costs the USN and its capabilities.,in comparison to Indian warships,or the cost of the RN/EU DDGs.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 28 Jun 2014 21:07

Philip wrote:What is the huge capability diff between the "L'ks and the Tals? Same SAM,same anti-ship missiles,now BMos the diff.


Well compared to Talwar Blk 2.
- Shivalik CODOG gives it better range and GE turbines are far more reliable than the Zorya Mashproekt turbines.
- Two vs One Rbu-6000.
- Air search radar for Shivalik is EL/M-2238 which is superior to Talwar's Pozitiv Radar, former is better than even Fregat when it comes to detection range and targets tracked.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby abhik » 28 Jun 2014 21:31

^^^
2 helicopters carried Vs 1?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 28 Jun 2014 21:32

Philip already mentioned that.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby saje » 28 Jun 2014 22:09

tushar_m wrote:Indian navy Sindhurakshak (S63) salvaged at Mumbai Harbour


Image


I really hope they don't try to send it to Russia for an expensive repair. Instead the S'shak & the S'kirti should be handed over to the DRDO and whoever else was involved in building the Arihant, so that they can study both the vessels and try to come up with a desi-KILO or atleast a mini-KILO. This is a beautiful opportunity for us and I hope it is not squandered away too.

member_28526
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_28526 » 29 Jun 2014 00:12

saje wrote:
tushar_m wrote:Indian navy Sindhurakshak (S63) salvaged at Mumbai Harbour


Image


I really hope they don't try to send it to Russia for an expensive repair. Instead the S'shak & the S'kirti should be handed over to the DRDO and whoever else was involved in building the Arihant, so that they can study both the vessels and try to come up with a desi-KILO or atleast a mini-KILO. This is a beautiful opportunity for us and I hope it is not squandered away too.



They've already tried. Took apart a perfectly good kilo and till date have not put it back together. Whether they learnt anything is anyone's guess.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby svinayak » 29 Jun 2014 02:39

kaizanin wrote:They've already tried. Took apart a perfectly good kilo and till date have not put it back together. Whether they learnt anything is anyone's guess.

Process of taking apart is learning!


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests