Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Jul 2014 07:22

Animation of Project Seabird's shiplift.
In the initial part of the video one can see the future development plan of the project. A lot many warfs are planned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl9fMRRzgWA

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2014 07:46

I dont think we need huge Mistral/Juan Carlos type LPHD at the current juncture IF WE ARE INTERESTED IN AMHIB WARFARE SUPPORT PLATFORM ONLY. thats just blowing funds on 'nice to have' stuff vs essentials like submarines, ASW, AEW and AAW.

some smaller ships like the koreans and japanese would be fine. and since we want both the ability to cart helicopters and LST ships in the back, the
Oshumi would appear to fit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Csumi ... nding_ship.
the bigger Hyuga and Izumo are LPH only.

the korean Dokdo is analogous to the Oshumi. both designs are in service and hence proven.

we gotta lose our fascination(and weakness) for 'gori euro meat' and find our dharmic asiatic links again to the eastern biraders. more pragmatic, less lectures on HR and no drain inspector reports.

IF WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN RELIEVING THE STOL CARRIERS FOR STRIKE ROLE and NEED A ASW SEA CONTROL SHIP, then by all means the bigger Izumo style LPH with powerful fleet of ASW helis and AEW helis(to track missiles) is worth it to lead ASW task forces and sanitize the operating areas of our nuclear submarines and trade routes. A couple of them parked in the bay of bengal and arabian sea mumbai-aden route in conjunction with P8 and MRMP from land bases will make life very tough for enemy submarines in our backyard.

someone has got to make their minds up. the Mistral / Juan carlos imo is also in that mould probably.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 29 Jul 2014 09:03

@ Singha - you are interpreting the post as evaluating the Mistral class, while it was about downsides of buying second hand stuff.

At the same time, Oshumi and all brings an interesting perspective. We have recently started worrying about Chinese subs (considering our procurement). Wonder how the Taiwanese or Japanese are planning to counter Chinese submarines. Hoping we find something interesting (and not that they are all relying on US umbrella). Any links or prior research will be much appreciated.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2014 10:03

Well Japan has a good number of asw oriented ships, hyuga and izumi class lph, quality submarines, 85 orions and no doubt access to us data on cheen subs.

its Taiwan who is sorely dependent on usa cover.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jul 2014 10:05

IN has not clarified what it wants to..just more of jalashwa or asw sea control.
i figure extended onsite asw ought to be our focus area.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 29 Jul 2014 10:37

1,000th anniversary of the coronation of one of India's greatest Emperor who had a Badass Navy, turned Bay of Bengal and Malacca Strait into "Cholan Lakes" , sent Expeditionary Forces to Indonesia and Malaysia and established his influence over South East Asia.

Rajendra Chola 1 (at the feet of Lord Shiva)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2014 16:38

Nice reminder Rony! We seem to forget our glorious past esp. in maritime affairs.How did "Indo-China" become the repository of such magnificent archaeo-cultural masterpieces of Hindu and Buddhist origin? There is far more Indian influencde in Indo-China than Chinese,why I reiterate that we should stop calling the "S.China Sea" as such and call it instead the "Indo-China Sea" at least in all national media and internal communications.It will send the Chinese a (none too) subtle message. Similarly Tibet in future could be called "Upper" Ladakh,Uttranchal,UP,Himachal,Ar.P.,whatever!

Report on the booing global sub market.One reason why we need those 4 multi-role amphib vessels.If of Juan Carlos size and capability,they will be v.important force multipliers and when tasked for ASW ops ,especially valuable as they could easily carry over a dozen + ASW heavy helos.

http://www.whatech.com/market-research- ... -forecasts
Global submarine market is estimated to value US$14.4 billion and is expected to grow to US$21.7 billion by 2023

This report is the result of SDI's extensive market and company research covering the global Submarine industry. It provides detailed analysis of both historic and forecast global industry values, factors influencing demand, the challenges faced by industry participants, analysis of the leading companies in the industry, and key news.

Synopsis

This report is the result of SDI's extensive market and company research covering the global Submarine industry. It provides detailed analysis of both historic and forecast global industry values, factors influencing demand, the challenges faced by industry participants, analysis of the leading companies in the industry, and key news.

Introduction and Landscape
Why was the report written?

The Global Submarine Market 2013-2023 offers the reader detailed analysis of the global Submarine market over the next ten years, alongside potential market opportunities to enter the industry, using detailed market size forecasts.

What are the key drivers behind recent market changes?

In 2013 the global submarine market is estimated to value US$14.4 billion and is expected to grow to US$21.7 billion by 2023, representing a CAGR of 4.2% during the forecast period. The market consists of three categories: SSN, SSBN and SSK. The global expenditure on SSNs is expected to account for a major share of approximately 41% during the forecast period. The remaining expenditure is accounted for by SSBN and SSK with shares of 33% and 26% respectively.

What makes this report unique and essential to read?

The Global Submarine Market 2013-2023 provides detailed analysis of the current industry size and growth expectations from 2013 to 2023, including highlights of key growth stimulators. It also benchmarks the industry against key global markets and provides a detailed understanding of emerging opportunities in specific areas.

Key Features and Benefits

The report provides detailed analysis of the market for submarines during 2013-2023, including the factors that influence why countries are investing or cutting defense expenditure. It provides detailed expectations of growth rates and projected total expenditure.
Navantia, Fincantieri, DCNS, Kockums, BAE Systems, Mazagon Docks, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, PO Sevmash, Huntington Ingalls Industries, General Dynamics Electric Boat Limited, Admiralty Shipyards, ThyssenkKrupp Marine Systems, ASC, Golcuk Naval Shipyard, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation, SaaB, Thales, Lockheed Martin
A significant number of countries such as the US, the UK, Germany, France, and India are currently in the process of replacing their existing fleet of submarines. Most of these submarines are being retired as they have reached the end of their operational cycle. Additionally, Soviet era submarines currently in use by countries such as Russia, India, and China need to be replaced. The demand for modern submarines creates a lucrative opportunity for suppliers across the world.

Key Market Issues

The market for submarines in the Western world drastically reduced after the end of the Cold War and those possessing substantial submarine building capabilities are virtually self-sufficient in this regard. However BRIC countries and the developing economies of Southeast Asia are becoming financially able to fund a cost consuming submarine capability. China, with its anti-access strategy and its claim to the South China Sea, and North Korea, with its belligerent attitude, have triggered the demand for submarines in the Far East. Regional rivalries among countries such as India and Pakistan, and Greece and Turkey, and the push for general modernization are seen as drivers for the submarine market worldwide.
The global submarine industry requires skilled labor to design submarines and provide maintenance and upgrades throughout its operational life. However, budget cuts have led to a shortage of skilled professionals such as reactor engineers and scientists, causing a resource crunch within the industry. The UK's submarine industry is currently facing a 14% shortage of civilian safety experts and a 7% shortage of submarine reactor engineers, largely due to a lack of defense budget allocation.

Purchase a copy of this report @ http://marketreportsstore.com/purchase?rname=4635 .

Key Highlights

A submarine that draws power by onboard nuclear reactors has a nearly boundless range and advanced maneuverability. The submarine can be positioned in distant waters across the globe with no need to surface except for crew provisions every three months or so. Therefore, the innovation of the nuclear reactor is serving at least six international navies: the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, and India, all of which possess nuclear submarines.
The decreased demand for submarines in the West and the increasing number of technologically advanced sub-systems included in these vessels means that no single industry would be able to develop and sustain a submarine manufacturing base. This has gradually resulted in consolidation in the industry. There is also increasing collaboration on joint development and production activities amongst firms. For example American firms Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat jointly produce the Virginia-class submarines

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 19:02

Malabar 2014 pictures -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt ... 963308513/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2014 02:11

With ref. to BK's article,I was told by one in the know that some in the IN are obsessed with a conventional P-75I
requirement for an AIP boat,while we are already building nuclear boats with the ATV/Arihant and operating the Chakra (Akula-2) ! A conventional AIP sub even with an AIP module-and there are conflicting opinions on which AIP system is best,MESMA,fuel cell and the Stirling system.But none of these subs can operate for more than 45+ days,perhaps stretched to 60,while a nuclear boat's usual time on patrol is 90 days.Recently a USN Ohio class sub made a record patrol of 140 days! In the era of extended blue-water ops there is nothing like a nuclear boat,especially for India which has huge operational requirements in the IOR and Indo-Asia-Pacific theatre as the US is now linking the IOR with the Pacific.

True,littoral subs are best for close brown water ops and we need them too,but a sub fleet of around 16 conventional/AIP subs would suffice,whereas the real teeth of the IN would need to be a fleet of at least 12 nuclear boats,5/6 SSBNs and 6-8 SSGNs.The Russian offer that BK has written of is an excellent one.The amount of weaponry that an Akula can carry,a cocktail of 40 missiles and TTs including the rocker torpedo Shkval (BK has confused the Shtil SAM with Shkval) is simply frightening. A new SSGN attack sub design tailor made for the IN could be developed jointly with Russian assistance,without which the ATV programme would not have been possible.

Incidentally,there is a massive sub building exercise taking place in Russia right now,that beggars even Cold War stats.Putin is correctly placing the highest priority for the building of new SSBNs and SSGNs to reinforce and retain Russian strategic forces interests and the ability to dominate the oceans with new powerful SSGNs.Here are some snippets:

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/ ... t-spending
Soaring Russian nuclear submarine construction dwarfed post-Soviet dismantlement spending

Published on July 28, 2014 by Charles Digges
crewonsubmarinedeck

After nearly two decades that saw more than $20 billion in foreign funding help dismantle derelict nuclear submarines in Russia’s Northern Fleet – ridding the country of countless Cold War legacy radiological hazards – Moscow is spending more than 30 times that to reestablish itself as the preeminent nuclear submarine force in the world, Russian and other news outlets have reported.

There is no shortage of jingoism driving the massive build out of 10 new military submarines at a cost of $659 billion, according to Russia’s Ministry of Defense in a budgetary document (in Russian) detailing its spending in 2014 and 2015, compiled in 2012

Russia has justified the push to broaden its attack and ballistic submarine capabilities to tighten its grip of the Arctic and its vast oil and gas prospecting activities. The staggering defense outlays are unlikely to raise domestic questions amid a steady drumbeat of anti-western propaganda that has become all-pervasive media fare since the Ukraine crisis began in March.
graneyclasssubmarineinseverodvinsk_0

The Severodvinsk submarine. (Photo: Sevmash.ru and courtesy of the Barents Observer)

On July 19, the Russian navy laid down the keels for three new vessels at the White Sea’s Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk – one for the strategic missile sub Knyaz Oleg, of the much-touted fourth generation Borei submarine class, as well as those for the Khabarovsk and the Krasnoyarsk, both slated as fourth generation Yasen Class subs, the Barents Observer news portal reported.

The new sub builds bring the total under construction at Sevmash to 10, the most subs under construction at once since the Soviet times, the portal said.

The 10 are scheduled to be seaworthy by 2020, though expensive and protracted delays with the Severodvinsk, which was finally commissioned to the Russian Navy in June after 23 years of construction, likely mean the finish dates are fluid.

The 10 subs presently being built will join another 24 nuclear subs that are still in service in Russia’s Northern Fleet. It remains unclear if all the subs under construction at Sevmash will go to the Northern Fleet, or if some will be distributed to the Pacific Fleet, based near Vladivostok, the Barents Observer reported.

The remaining submarines under construction are two Yasen Class subs called the Kazan and the Novosibirsk, and two Borei Class subs, the Vladimir Monomakh, and the Knyz Vladimir, the portal reported. Both classes already have one sub at sea: the Yury Dolgoruky of the Borei Class and the Yasen’s Severodvinsk.

The Barents Observer said that Sevmash, possibly in conjunction with St. Petersburg’s Admiralty Shipyard, is also building two more special purpose submarines. It reported one of these submarines could be a sister vessel to the Losharik, also under construction, and which is a special deep diving titanium hulled vessel for work on the sea floor.

Undoing decades of decommissioning

Bellona General Manager and nuclear physicist Nils Bøhmer said the new sub build up threatens to unseam decades of western aid toward dismantling old Cold War era subs and safely securing their spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste – projects post-Soviet Russia simply could not afford on its own.

The hundreds of billions going into the new sub classes, he said, is a slap in the face to these and other western funded nuclear clean up efforts in Russia, as it shows clearly that Moscow has the cash to mop up its own mess.

“There are still huge amounts of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at [the former sub fuel storage site at] Andreyeva Bay that need to be addressed correctly,” Bøhmer said.

“As tension grows between Russia and the rest of the world as the crisis in Ukraine deepens, it’s unlikely that the huge international resources available in the past will again materialize to continue these clean up efforts,” he said, adding that, “the building of new submarines in Russia shows it has the financial resources to put toward Cold War legacy clean up as well.”

The all but defunct US-based Nunn-Lugar, or Cooperative Threat Reduction program, helped decommission dozens of Yankee and Delta Class Russian ballistic missile submarines since 1992, and safely store their waste. The Barents Observer noted that European countries from the UK to Norway, as well as Canada and South Korea paid to dismantle attack and multi-purpose submarines – most in miserable, rusted-out condition under constant threat of sinking – which were not covered by the Nunn Lugar agreement.

Norway devoted millions to dismantling four submarines at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk and the Nerpa shipyard near Murmansk, the Barents Observer said. Norway also took part in the delicate transport of a dilapidated November class submarine to dismantlement, a $3 million project.

The former G-8 – now the G-7 after Russia’s ouster over its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine – likewise poured $20 billion into remediating nuclear hot spots in Russia between 2003 and 2013, with the aim of preventing nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.

This funding never included dismantling and safe storage for spent nuclear fuel among Russia’s decommissioned nuclear powered battle cruisers, like the Admiral Ushakov. This vessel has been bobbing at quayside, its two pressurized water reactors loaded with spent fuel, at the Zvezdochka shipyard for 17 years.

The yard’s director, Vladimir Nikitin, recently made an appeal to the Russian government for help to safely dismantle the vessel, the costs of which he estimates will exceed dismantling a nuclear submarine by 10 times. The b-port news portal based in Murmansk reported (in Russian) that no funding to do anything with the vessel is expected from federal coffers until 2016 – yet another in a series of long delays.

Yet for the towering funds infused by the West for nuclear remediation, Russia is outspending the G-8 efforts by some 30 to one. The Yasen Class debut submarines, the Severodvinsk, cost $1.5 billion. This equals the cost of two Borei class nuclear subs – the first of which was launched in 2008 – or the cost of 50 SU-35 fighter planes.

The Kazan, the second of the Yasen Class line, is expected to be twice as expensive as its older brother, according to the official Izvestia newspaper.

If there is any silver lining to the new build out, it is that the new submarine reactors are not expected to significantly add to waste already accrued at places like Andreyeva Bay, said Alexander Nikitin, chairman of the Environmental Rights Center (ERC) Bellona, and a former submarine captain.

He said the new vessels have new reactor installations that might not require refueling for at as many as 15 years after their launch, thus cutting down on the amount of spent fuel from them that would have to be stored. He added, however, that little is known of the new reactors and authoritatively discussing their future contribution to accrued spend nuclear fuel was difficult.

Putin Marks Navy Day At Base For Nuclear Submarines
Russian President Vladimir Putin (file photo)Russian President Vladimir Putin (file photo)

July 27, 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin has marked the country's "Navy Day" by visiting the northern port of Severomorsk, home to Russia's Northern Fleet.

Putin laid a wreath at the monument to the "Heroes of the Defense of Zapolarya in the Great Patriotic War" (World War II) on July 27 and then he and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu watched from a naval battle cruiser as warships and submarines sailed by the port to mark the occasion.

Putin then flew to the "Admiral Kuznetsov," a Soviet-era aircraft carrier, also Russia's only aircraft carrier, and delivered a speech that noted one of Russia's priorities was strengthening the Black Sea Fleet.

Russia's ITAR-TASS news agency reported the "Admiral Kuznetsov" will undergo repair and modernization during the next three to four years.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was in Severodvinsk, in the Archangelsk region, home to the Sevmash shipyard, to mark the day and watch a ceremony starting construction of another of Russia's new-generation nuclear missile submarines, the Borei-class "Knyaz Oleg" (Prince Oleg), and also two Yasen-class submarines, the "Krasnoyarsk" and "Khabarovsk."

The "Knyaz Oleg" will join the "Knyaz Vladimir," which is currently under construction, and two other Borei-class 955A submarines already handed over to the navy, the "Yury Dolgoruky" and "Aleksandr Nevsky." The navy is also due to receive the" Vladimir Monomakh" submarine later this year.

Russia plans to build eight Borei-class submarines, each armed with 16 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles and six SS-N-15 cruise missiles. The Russian Navy should have seven Yasen-class submarines by 2020 but plans call for 16 of the vessels to eventually be put into service.

Yasen-class vessels are attack submarines armed with cruise missiles and an array of antiship/antisubmarine missiles and torpedoes.

Rogozin said in his speech the Borei-class strategic nuclear submarines and Yasen-class multipurpose submarines being built at Severodvinsk would create a reliable nuclear shield against any threat.

"We see the presence of a nuclear potential can cool the fervor of any aggressor located at any point in the world," he said.

Putin joined the officials in Severodvinsk via videolink from Severomorsk to discuss the progress at the Sevmash shipyard.

There was also a large ceremony marking Navy Day at Russia's Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol.

Meanwhile, ITAR-TASS reported the French Mistral-class helicopter-carrier Russia is purchasing will take up duty in the Pacific Ocean after it joins the Russian Navy.

There have been calls in Europe for France to cancel sale of the vessel, and another such carrier Russia has contracted to buy.

Some European officials have expressed concerns about selling Russia sophisticated military equipment at a time when the European Union and others is imposing sanctions on Russian businesses and individuals for the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 30 Jul 2014 03:15

Singha wrote:Well Japan has a good number of asw oriented ships, hyuga and izumi class lph, quality submarines, 85 orions and no doubt access to us data on cheen subs.

its Taiwan who is sorely dependent on usa cover.

Aerial route to counteract submarine activity is going to be 'un-affordable'.

Japan sourced 85 Orion's each costing 35 million from Kawasaki a while back. Our shiny P8i cost a cool 300 million. So assuming Japan and India have to defend same amount of water mass, we will have to spend 100* 300 million - cool 30 billion $ for P8i planes. Even if we discount for longer on station time, capability and what not, it is a staggering amount of cash. Not even thinking fuel costs and rest of the gear.

Looks like we need to start a domestic equivalent of Orion project - now the avro replacement seems like a good candidate to retrofit for this job akin to Dhruv -> Rudra transformation.

These ASW and LPH platforms put a lot at risk - crew and all for sub hunting roles - cost a bundle of cash too Personally, feel that submarines still can hold up well against these. I mean a Chinese kilo surfaced next to USN carrier - shows inherent stealthiness of submarines.

Ideally, want something which has better resilience than a flying plane or helicopter - like a mini oil drill platform or boat or sinkable platform, rigged for surveillance and denial role, spread over a grid in IOR. Unmanned would be better. Add to DRDO wish list?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2014 07:21

Well said Nik! It's exactly what I've proposed with amphib aircraft. There is an amphib version of the Do-228s which we are manufacturing in large numbers.No difficulty in building them for the CG instead of acquiring expensive much larger Japanese amphibs.WE could easily build a dozen for the price of just one Shin Meiwa.Larger amphibs would be preferable for the IN.Similarly,the debate about the P-8's capability is going on even in the US.For the "low and slow" role,turboprops are much better ,have longer loiter time on station,etc.P-8s have to drop their torpedoes with spl. wing kits.Operating at slow speeds at lower altitudes stresses the airframe.

The IN operates 5 IL-38SDs upgraded from Russia.Russia has dozens more in storage and have just delivered another upgraded version for their own navy.These are much cheaper than P-8s.We could acquire another 7 for the price of just 2 P-8s. Similarly,old turboprops with airframe life could be modified for maritime duties.One isn't sure about the Avros as they are quite ancient,but one must remember how our Supe-Connies were adapted from civilian use as LRMP aircraft.AI also has a large number of 737 platforms,the same used for the P-8.We could attempt to reverse engineer the same like the Chinese since the 737 has been operating in India for decades and will do for at least another 3 decades.

The new MTA under a JV with Russia is another ideal platform for an MRP aircraft,plus a platform for specialised aircraft like AEW,a better platform than the EMB platforms we are using for our indigenous AEW aircraft which are much smaller,ELINT aircraft as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2014 07:35

i guess starting point in reducing cost is laying SOSUS type sea bed sensors all around the place.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2014 08:48

Singha,that's one option,but also expensive.But for our well known chokepoints and outside our principal bases and ports,probably essential.Knowing where the seabed sensors might be deployed might allow enemy subs to use other routes.The USN is developing a novel tactic."Mother" UUVs will deploy several smaller UUVs each designated for a different purpose,or meant to carry out differing tasks with individual specialised eqpt.,or be used as kamikaze vehicles. Thus a larger sub might carry piggyback like the spl. forces pods,a mother UUV and deploy it some considerable distance away from the coastline. The IN /DRDO is quite some way behind the international navies in developing UUVs.We should possess hundreds of them .The Israelis have also developed a well known unmanned harbour surveillance vehicle that does the work of a small patrol craft.

But the beauty of a sub is its mobility.Armed with a variety of missiles,anti-ship ,land attack,anti-sub like the Klub series,a hostile sub can simply loiter out of range of sensors or home ASW assets and "let go" when required.We require a cocktail of ASW surveillance assets to first locate enemy subs then prosecute them.Fortunately egresss into the IOR is through the usual chokepoints,the "Malacca dilemma" as the PLAN describes it.But once inside its another game.The PLAN plan to use Gwadar and poss. Burmese ports in the future is of grave concern.As it is it "informed" us as a "friendly" nation that last year its N-subs were deployed in the IOR.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 30 Jul 2014 09:11

Check how the US navy kept tabs on soviet submarine movement in below links - something of this nature in IOR would likely be the most effective way for anti submarine warfare.

At the same time, how effective this IUSS / SOSUS network is because it looks to be a game changer.

http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/iuss.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a401150.pdf

Wonder why we do not invest in technologies which negate Chinese/Pakis numerical advantage in a non-standard way. Weapon for weapon, platform for platform is impossible to achieve given difference in economic standing (with chinese)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2014 20:14

Did you know about this dudes?

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... 354793.ece

Celebrating India's First Naval Victory over Europe

By Express News Service
Published: 30th July 2014
The Victory Column at Colachel; the inscription on the column.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The 273rd anniversary of one of the finest moments in Indian military and political history will be celebrated this Thursday at the coastal hamlet of Colachel in Kanyakumari district. The Indian Army will celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Colachel, which saw Travancore forces defeating the Dutch in a naval battle in 1741, with a colourful function at the Victory Column in Colachel.

Organised by the Madras Regiment, the event will be attended by Brigadier Samir Salunke, Station Commander, Pangode Military Station, civil authorities, police officials, retired officers and local officials. The event is held annually to mark the victory of Travancore forces over a vastly superior European Naval Force on July 31, 1741, a landmark event and the first of its kind in Indian history, a defence spokesperson said.

A wreath-laying ceremony at the Victory Column will be followed by a military band display by the pipe band of the regiment.

The Travancore kingdom had erected the column at what is today a fishing hamlet in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu to mark Marthanda Varma’s victory over the Dutch forces led by Eustachius De Lannoy. After Independence, the Travancore state forces were integrated into the Madras Regiment as the 9th and 16th battalions. 9 Madras is currently stationed at the Pangode Military Station.

Celebrating the anniversary of the Battle of Colachel also involves a battle of dates. The victory column carries the date July 31, 1741 based on the Julian calendar, which has fallen into disuse now. Going by the Gregorian calendar, which we use now, the date of the battle will fall in the second week of August. In fact, some local organisations celebrate the anniversary in August every year.

Incidentally,since Nik has brought up the topic,SOSUS was in vogue during the Cold War.In the Atlantic,NATO/US naval forces tracked Soviet subs as they exited the Baltic and Arctic Seas detected by a variety of sensors and assets straddling the "GIUK (Greenland,Iceland UK) Gap".On the other side of the world,US subs tapped into Sovier undersea commn. cables linking the Petrapavlosk base in the Kamchatka peninsula with Vladivostok,HQ of the Pacific fleet.Unfortunately,after many years of successful tapping,an NSA commn. analysts,Pelton sold out to the Soviets who removed the tap after sending some disinformation for about a yr.
Today,with the Snowden revelations,we find that the US is tapping into everyone's commn. undersea cables!

But the biggest blow to the US was the infamous Walker (family) spy ring,who sold out to the Soviets,considered the biggest betrayal ever,that is until one Snowden!
(http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhist ... t-betrayal)
The Soviets used the info provided by the Walker ring to leapfrog naval warfare tech considerably.
The Navy, in which John Walker served for 20 years, was enormously damaged by his espionage. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger concluded that the Soviet Union made significant gains in naval warfare that were attributable to Walker's spying. His espionage provided Moscow "access to weapons and sensor data and naval tactics, terrorist threats, and surface, submarine, and airborne training, readiness and tactics," according to Weinberger. A quarter-century after John Walker's arrest, it is illuminating to revisit the story of his naval spy ring, both for what it reveals about espionage versus security and for how it highlights the ambitions and frailties at the heart of spying.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 30 Jul 2014 21:52

If you look at SOSUS - most of the cost was in laying cables and distributed monitoring stations. Given advances in communication technology, its successor ISUS cut significantly these two cost elements - centralized monitoring and wireless communication from sensor arrays.

What worries me is that a single naval candidate takes 5 plus years to gain mastery of this skill. But in any tech development, the bottleneck has always been grey matter anyways.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 31 Jul 2014 18:55

Philip wrote:Did you know about this dudes?

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... 354793.ece

Celebrating India's First Naval Victory over Europe
the story of his naval spy ring, both for what it reveals about espionage versus security and for how it highlights the ambitions and frailties at the heart of spying.
[/b]

Yes ..Never Forget the moment .Cholachal is my home city .

my Parents are lived under kingdom of Travancore

one more Special the Padamanabaswamy Temple is too belonged to the King of Travancore

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 31 Jul 2014 21:32

Navy gets new facility to communicate with nuclear submarines prowling underwater

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Aug 2014 02:10

^^ Just reminded me of an old article by Sayan Majumdar, I'd read before BRF days:

http://www.indiadefence.com/subcomm.htm

ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS

| An IDC Analysis with Inputs from Sayan Majumdar |

New Delhi, 01 February 2004

In the futuristic scenario painted by Gen S Padmanabhan in his book reviewed by us last week he missed out on one very pertinent and potent future weapon for India in 2017 –– the use of submarines both conventional and nuclear powered, with the stated ‘second strike’ capability. It is quite likely that an Indian nuclear submarine will be in operation by then with sister submarines, as India’s second strike. The General discussed the ALH, Vajra a laser based weapon, advanced Akash AA systems and others in the book for the 2017 scenario but failed to include futuristic submarines and their communications. Several reports have suggested that the Indian Navy will have an operational nuclear powered submarine by about 2006. In such a scenario it is pertinent to shift focus to underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications for effective coordination of the submarines with the National Command Authority.

The exact type of submarine the Navy may get remains to be seen but it could be a customized development of Russian Project 885 Yasen/Graney Class also referred to as Severodvinsk Class, which is a further derivative of the Project 971 Akula Class and features a significant cruise missile capability with eight vertical launch tubes aft of the sail. The hull is made of low magnetic steel, with spherical bow sonar and canted torpedo tubes. Another option could be a variant of Project 949A Antey Oscar II Class SSGN (Submarine, Nuclear powered, Cruise missile armed). Interestingly the dimensions of Oscar are greater than most variants of even ballistic missile armed submarines.

The Indian Navy had anticipated the importance of VLF (Very Low Frequency) underwater transmissions long ago. As part of an ambitious naval modernisation program, during the mid-1980s the Indian Navy had constructed a VLF (Very Low Frequency) broadcasting station in Tamil Nadu. Although not publicly declared, it was reported that the United States actively collaborated in the project, which was completed in September 1986.

The operational VLF facility can primarily be used by the Indian Navy to communicate with its SSKs (Submarine, Conventional powered hunter-killer). When nuclear submarines become operational, the VLF facility will permit Indian National Command Authority to issue launch orders to submerged subs at depths of several metres. VLF waves propagate almost a quarter of the globe away and are generally immune to atmospheric disturbances caused by nuclear detonations.

However on the negative side, their small bandwidth limits the rate of transmission of data, usually allowing only the operation of slow Teletype messages. Moreover the large terrestrial and static VLF facility would be vulnerable to enemy strikes and even if the VLF facility is shifted deep underground in “hardened” shelters, the communication antennae would be located above ground and will remain vulnerable. Thus an airborne VLF transmitter similar to the US Navy’s TACAMO (Take Charge And Move Out) should be seriously considered for procurement.

A powerful 200KW transmitter provides the VLF transmissions in TACAMO. The United States Navy utilizes an EC-130A/Q Hercules with a trailing wire antennae 10km long with a drogue parachute at the end. During transmission the aircraft flies in a continuous tight circle, which results in over 70 percent of the wire hanging straight down and acting as a relatively efficient vertical antennae.

Presently the E-6 Mercury is the airborne platform of the United States TACAMO Communications System. It provides survivable communication links between the United States NCA (National Command Authority) and Strategic Forces. Long range, air refuelable E-6 is a derivative of the commercial Boeing 707 aircraft equipped with four CFM-56-2A-2 high bypass ratio fan/jet engines with thrust reversers. The weapon system is EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) hardened. Mission range is over 6000 nautical miles. E-6B fulfils both TACAMO and ABNCP (Airborne National Command Post) missions.

The E-6 ABNCP modification program was established to upgrade TACAMO operational capabilities by incorporating a subset of USSTRATCOMM (United States Strategic Command) EC-135 ABNCP equipment into the E-6 aircraft. The modified aircraft have the designation changed from E-6A to E-6B. The E-6B modified an E-6A by adding battle staff positions and other specialised equipment. The E-6B is a dual-mission aircraft capable of fulfilling either the E-6A mission or the airborne strategic command post mission and is equipped with an ALCS (Airborne Launch Control System). The ALCS is capable of launching United States ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). The E-6B is capable of performing both the TACAMO and ABNCP missions.

This modification enables USSTRATCOM to perform current and projected TACAMO and ABNCP operational tasking and the E-6B provides survivable C3 (Command, Control and Communications) force management communications for the NCA via multiple frequency band communications. TACAMO role is fulfilled in Russian Navy by a variant of Tupolev-142 Bear-J.

Attention has now shifted to laser based underwater communications. There is an optical window in the blue-green part of the laser spectrum, which enables transmission to penetrate the ocean at substantial distance. Power requirements are considerable and the system at least presently cannot be installed in artificial satellites. Thus as a tactical improvisation the laser is made to be ground based, preferably mobile, in perfect conjunction with a space based mirror with adaptive optics being used to produce a cohesive beam. Significantly, data transfer rate will be 300 times greater than ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) system although the “rerouted” laser may not penetrate the same depth.

The effective combination of nuclear submarines and underwater VLF/ELF (Very Low Frequency/Extremely Low Frequency) and laser communications will make our sea based nuclear deterrent optimally effective. The challenge lies in front of our national leadership and defence scientists to “secure” the proper system either indigenously or import it from established powers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Aug 2014 04:54

Tx Dhan for that insightful post.We will have to use a cocktail of commn. assets (VLF,ELF,aircraft and sats) to avoid the vulnerability of VLF antennas .B/G laser tech has been around,scant news as any breakthrough would be the most sensitive and classified of tech.

Increasingly,the southern part of the country is becoming more important for defence installations.Apart from the VLF centre,plus another one recently mentioned to be installed in Andhra,the full-fledged air force stn. at Tanjore operating SUs has been established,the first LCA sqd. is also to be based at Sulur,the P-8s,TU-142s operate out of Arkonam near Madras,and the Karwar naval base is growing in capability with the Vik-A homeported there.Once SeaBird has its own naval air station which can operate the largest aircraft in the fleet,apart from Dab. in Goa,and the Campbell Bay airstrip is lengthened the "full Monty" and the base beefed up,the range and reach of the IN will increase immeasurably,right into the Indo-China Sea.

India’s indigenous ASW Corvette built of steel made at ASP, Durgapur
Jayanta Gupta,TNN | Jul 12, 2014,

KOLKATA: On Saturday, when Rear Admiral (retd) A K Verma, chairman cum managing director, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE) formally handed over the INS Kamorta to commissioning captain Commander Manoj Jha, history was created. Not only is the INS Kamorta the first ship of the Indian Navy with such high indigenous content, it also marked the day when India shed her dependency on imported high-grade steel to build warships. DMR249A, or the steel made at Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur and further strengthened at the Bhilai Steel Plant, was used to build the anti-submarine warfare corvette.

"This was the first ship of the Kamorta class of ASW corvettes. These are very advanced vessels. GRSE is presently building the three other vessels of this class. All of them will be built using DMR249A. This was a great achievement for the country. Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) has developed this steel and we will no longer have to depend on imports for naval shipbuilding that will certainly go up in the days to come. Even the hull of the INS Vikrant, India's indigenous aircraft carrier that is under construction, has been built with this steel. The flight deck of the aircraft carrier has been built using a superior quality steel that was also made at the Alloy Steel Plant," a senior defence ministry official said.

Till now, India has been primarily using Russian-made AB Steel for naval shipbuilding. With India aiming to turn into a 'Builders Navy' from a 'Buyers Navy', the country can't rely solely on imports to build ships, that too for something like steel which is required in bulk. The bulk of sensors and weapons systems on the INS Kamorta have also been supplied by Indian companies.

"Pricing is not the factor alone. One has to consider changes in the global political scenario. A time may come when sanctions are imposed and exports to India are banned by countries that now supply steel for shipbuilding. Employees at GRSE had to take special training in welding this steel. This quality of steel was first developed in ingot form at the Heavy Engineering Corporation in Ranchi as per specifications of the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory. At Durgapur, the steel was cast into plates. The aim is to build steel that is of superior quality to what we import. It was left to Bhilai to produce plates of 8-16 mm thickness without Quenching and Tempering (Q&T), through controlled rolling. Later, we started making plates of 18-20 mm thickness," the official added.

It took some doing but when DMR 249A was finally developed, it had superior qualities to imported steel. The steel can absorb an impact of 78 Joules at 60 degrees below zero. As temperature reduces, the steel actually becomes tougher. This will enable the ship to sail in arctic waters if the need arises.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 02 Aug 2014 01:50

how true is this

titash · Post by **titash** » 02 Aug 2014 01:54

parshuram wrote:how true is this

Ignore - this one has been debunked as fraudulent several times already.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 02 Aug 2014 02:02

Please recognize the paki. Only their rust bucket navy is run like a hand me down fishing fleet.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Aug 2014 06:12

http://defenceforumindia.com/sikorsky-s ... vy-mrh-738

The Indian Navy’s Multi Role Helicopter (MRH) competition has been the source of much discussion with regards to which of the two final candidates (NH90 & S-70B) is best suited for the Indian Navy requirements. I would like to offer my opinion as to why I believe the Sikorsky S-70B is the best choice. The following are what I believe to be key data points as to why I believe their choice should be the S-70B:

The Sikorsky SeaHawk Lineage

The S-70B Seahawk comes from a tried and proven lineage going all the way back to the basic Blackhawk. There are thousands of aircraft in service with both the U.S. military and a variety of international military services that all use a basic airframe that has been modified over the years to perform many missions. Please refer to Figure 1 for a complete picture of the Sikorsky Hawk lineage.

Improvements the aircraft over the years have addressed any issues that have arisen. The maintenance and corrosion issues are well understood and documented. While the NH90 does use more composite material, it is a new aircraft and the lessons learned for that aircraft once it is in actual service are still ongoing. The U.S. Navy had such confidence in the SeaHawk (the SH-60R and SH-60F aircraft that were the previous generation ASW and ASuW platforms) that it embarked on a program to reduce the number of rotary wing aircraft in service from 7 different types down to two different types (The new MH-60R and the MH-60S). The S-70B is not flown by the U.S. military as it was designed to offer similar capabilities to the 60R and 60S but for international customers only. The systems used are comparable (sometimes identical) to the ones used on the 60R and 60S but are approved for export to qualified countries. The S-70B also evolved from the SH-60F and SH-60B but to serve international customers. The current 5th generation avionics system used on the S-70B had its roots in the S-70B-2 aircraft that were delivered to the Royal Australian Navy some many years ago and are still in service today. This began the transition to an all glass cockpit and fully integrated mission system and has evolved into a state of the art system that represents the many years’ of knowledge and experience of the Sikorsky Mission Systems Integration (MSI) team. That latest avionics system today, coupled with an airframe that is well proven, is in service with the Turkish, Singapore, and Brazil navies and represents what I believe to be the best in ASW and ASuW rotary wing aircraft in the world. It is a system so well designed and integrated that I believe it is a key discriminator in what sets this aircraft apart from any other similarly equipped rotary wing platform.

Built for the international market place

Early on the Sikorsky S-70B team recognized that most, if not all, international customers would require some sort of customization of the avionics system. In addition, many (if not all) contracts today with foreign militaries require financial offset agreements to allow financial benefit to the purchasing country. The two previous statements are often coupled with requirements for the use of indigenous systems from the purchasing country and integrated into the purchased aircraft. With that in mind, the basic architecture of the S-70B avionics system was designed with ability to facilitate the ease in which equipment could be added or substituted.

The use of a Federated Architecture, where primary functions such as flight management, mission management, weapons management and flight control functionality was distributed into different subsystems that would act as the central computing resource for providing that functionality. Interfaces between the computing resources are well defined and controlled. This approach, as opposed to Centralized Architecture (where most if not all functionality resides in a single computing resource) has proven to be a better approach if future modification or enhancement of the avionics system is anticipated. Part if this is due to the isolation of functionality and thus typically limiting the extent of change to one computing resource. This lowers risk and cost for performing any maintenance or modification. Sikorsky has extensive experience in successfully modifying the S-70B for a variety of international customers.

S-70B is a 5th generation design

The S-70B has been characterized as an “old design” (by some competitors) meaning not representing what a modern aircraft should be. The airframe and engine package is a proven entity and has been updated over the years to use both lessons learned design changes and to provide new capabilities. The avionics system has been continually updated over the years to add enhancements and address obsolescence issues. Examples are a new flight control computer that condenses 3 control panels into one and provides new automatic flight control capabilities not previously offered. The Weapons Management System (WMS) offers excellent capabilities for growth and customization for new weapons installations. Dual Embedded GPS Inertial (EGI) navigation subsystems provide multimode navigation and attitude reference data. The 4 MFD glass cockpit architecture was designed to facilitate operator interface providing both keyboard and a windows like graphical user interface that provides the operators with great flexibility in how to use and interact with the missions system and its subsystems. Many operations can be performed via the Control Display Unit (CDU) keyboard as well as using the Multi Slew Controller (MSC) that provides a point and click type of operation via the MFD displays. There is a saying in America that goes, “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it”. The basic architecture design of the S-70B is a proven design that has been continuously improved to what it is today, a full glass cockpit design with unparalleled capability and ease of operator use.

Sikorsky Mission Systems Integration (MSI) Team

I had the privilege of working with many of the members of the MSI team during my career at Sikorsky. Encompassing many disciplines such as Sonar, Radar, Weapons, ESM, Electro Optics, Flight Control, Flight Test, etc., the teams and individuals I worked with were the best of the best. The quality of the overall aircraft and the design and implementation of the avionics and mission systems is a testament to the skill of these folks.

Given my primary function for many years was software development, I wanted to mention the systems and software development teams at Sikorsky specifically. The tools and procedures they utilize are state of the art and help to insure a quality software product is delivered for those requirements that are implemented in software. The Sikorsky MSI organization is qualified to Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 4 and therefore functions under the rules and procedures written to implement the model for a Level 4 organization. This helps to insure all design and integration activities are done under the same process, again contributing to a quality software product that meets the customer’s requirements when the aircraft is delivered.

The aircraft Sikorsky delivers will meet the requirements of the Indian Navy and will perform at or above the expectations of Sikorsky customers. That opinion is based on my work on the S-70B over the years and the interaction with our many international customers when I was privileged to be part of the aircraft delivery team. Speaking with Sikorsky customers and understanding and addressing their issues and concerns are something Sikorsky does very well. As with any extremely complex machine, problems can and do arise when delivering an aircraft. The measure of any vendor is how they address those problems and make the customer happy, or as Sikorsky would like to say “Delighted”. Sikorsky as a company and the MSI team as a whole know how to listen and then address and resolve issues that arise.

NH90 Delivery and Aircraft Problems

Some aircraft are over 6 years late. Countries have cancelled their orders and some have bought Sikorsky Blackhawks which were delivered in record time. The web is full of details that anyone can find. This is simply inexcusable for an aircraft vendor.

NHI itself has admitted that a significant contributor to the delays in fielding the aircraft on order is the customization that is being requested by customers. The fact that this is the case demonstrates NHI did not understand nor appreciate what their market would demand and did not properly prepare for it in the basic design of the NH90. In addition, if the existing NH90 TTH is suffering such problems as have been amply documented, it is logical to conclude that the naval variant NH90 NFH (NATO Frigate Helicopter, the naval model I believe the Indian Navy would receive) will suffer similar if not more complex issues as that platform is fielded in greater numbers. NH90 aircraft that have been delivered have some that are not “full up” configurations for even the basic TTH model. The avionics and mission systems on the NFH model will present and even more daunting task to fully mature and field a “full up” aircraft. The Indian Navy does not need to be experiencing these problems but rather have an aircraft that when delivered, is ready to perform its missions.

Summary: It is my hope that the S-70B is chosen for the MRH program because I sincerely believe it is really the best choice of the two products being offered at this time. Some will call me biased and I would be a liar if I denied it but I can back up what I have said with data and experience. There is a saying in the United States that goes “I call a spade a spade” which basically means I tell it like it is based on the facts.

As a company Sikorsky has a great reputation that it has built the Blackhawk and Seahawk aircraft and rightly so given the great record of the thousands of these aircraft out in the field all over the world. Sikorsky as a company can be summed up best by the new company motto. There have been a number of “mottos” used by Sikorsky over the years, but this one gets it right:

“We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home everywhere…every time”

Igor Sikorsky would be proud!

Discuss here

—–

Richard (Rik) Lammers is a retired principal engineer from Sikorsky Aircraft with over 33 years of experience in the implementation and management of systems & software design and integration of Flight Management, Mission Management, and Weapons Management systems for both commercial and military aircraft. The first 5 years working at Sperry Flight Systems in Phoenix, AZ (now Honeywell) on the Boeing 757 & 767 Flight Management and Electronic Flight Instrumentation (EFIS) Systems. The last 28 years at Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, CT working extensively on the S-70B and predecessor aircraft with the last 7 years being spent as a system, software, and integration lead and contract manager for weapons systems on the S-70B.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Aug 2014 07:03

From the point of a continuation of existing lineage being used,the AW Merlin Sea King replacement is the best of the lot,has extensively been used in Afghanistan,etc. There is even an AEW version. However,while it is eminently suitable for our carriers,its size and weight may be unsuitable for most of our DDGs and FFGs,certainly too large for our ASW corvettes and NOPVs.The choice is between the NH-90 and S-70B.The NH-90 had some niggling tech problems,supposedly rectified ,but it may have more familiar systems and weaponry.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Aug 2014 07:25

I'd go with the NH-90..

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 03 Aug 2014 15:15

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssian-Subs

Indian Navy Wants To Fast-Track Purchase of Russian Subs

The Indian Defence Ministry’s delay in floating a tender for six conventional submarines appears to be helping Russia, as the Indian Navy is now asking the MoD to buy two Russian-built Amur-class subs to help restock the shrinking force.

The $12 billion global tender would cover the purchase of six conventional submarines with air independent propulsion (AIP) technology under the Indian Navy’s Project 75-I.

A high-level team from Rosoboronexport was in New Delhi two weeks ago to negotiate the sale or lease of two Amur-class subs, said a source in MoD who gave no details of the deliberations.

The Indian Navy also plans to build six conventional Scorpene submarines under license by DCNS of France at Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks. The delivery of those submarines has been delayed by more than four years. The first of the six submarines will now be inducted into the Navy by 2016 compared with the original delivery date of 2012.

“The delay in Scorpene delivery as well as the delay in [the 75-I] submarine project has led to extreme depletion of [the] submarine arm,” said retired Indian Navy Capt. Shyam Kumar Singh. “The next new submarine will be ready to join the fleet only in 2018. Therefore the earnest need to procure the submarines from Russia.”

Russia leased the nuclear submarine Chakra in 1984, the only country to lease a nuclear submarine to India.

The Indian Navy operates seven Russian-made Kilo-class and four German-made SSK submarines, the last of which joined service in the late 1990s.

In the past year, three Kilo-class submarines were unavailable due to accidents and delays by the state-run shipyard at Vizag.

Though the Navy has asked the MoD to negotiate the purchase of two Amur subs, there is a difference of opinion among service officials about whether to buy Russian or Western-built vessels.

One faction favors the Russian-made AIP submarines, finding them more safe and robust while another group, mostly younger, prefers Western submarines based on a better score in electronics, control and sensors.

“Russian submarines are cheaper to maintain as the Indian Navy has invested heavily in creating relevant infrastructure to support the boats,” a senior Navy officer said. “Besides, there is adequate training on Russian submarines.”

Another officer rebutted: “While the Russian submarines are cheaper to buy initially, their support is expensive and has become an issue with the Indian Navy. While the French and the Western submarines are easier to maintain there are issues of transfer of technology of critical systems.”

While the Navy is facing depleting submarine fleet strength, there is uncertainty over the floating of the $12 billion tender under Project 75-I, now delayed by more than four years. The MoD has not given a reason for the delay in floating the tender.

“The project will not be scrapped,” Singh said. “However, the initial specifications were drawn sometime in 2006-07. It has already been eight years since then. Even if the tender is floated now, it will take at least 10 years for the first submarine to be built at the fastest and [it will be] outdated. The chances are that the specification may be changed. This could be the reason for delay in floating the formal tender.”

The overseas defense shipyards that have shown interest in Project 75-I include DCNS, for its Scorpene with AIP system; HDW of Germany with its Type 214 with Siemens Fuel Cell AIP submarine; Russia with its Amur-class submarine; and Fincantieri of Italy with its S-1000 submarine.

The strength of the Indian Navy submarine fleet has dwindled from a total of 21 vessels in the 1980s to 14. Yet China has more than 60 boats, a point of major concern to the Indian Navy, an official said.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 03 Aug 2014 17:39

Good news

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Aug 2014 18:26

Indian Navy Wants To Fast-Track Purchase of Russian Subs

Did you listen to the four vids?

The last time the IN played this game, Saint A signed off on the Scorpions.

Although this gov is not the same, we perhaps need to wait. for all I know they may add 2 to the Scorpion list and cancel/reduce the rafale.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 03 Aug 2014 18:36

There is really no point in adding another submarine building line, it just won't be sustainable. Its best to go for additional Scorpions and a couple of Kilos(rather than Amurs) from Russia if it is absolutely required.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Aug 2014 19:07

A Russian deal will be a disaster. We have good experience with the Russians on how not to have a deal with respect to INS Vikramaditya and INS Chakra. Russia is synonymous with delay and cost escalations. We dont have the luxury of time to go with a Russian deal. Place follow on deal for the three Scorpenes and start to build our own indigenous sub design using what's been learned from the Scorpene project and Arihant project by choosing DCNS as the consultant. If we really need a new submarine design then it's better to try the Soryu. What i dont understand is the need to have another deal with a foreign partner..when you have the design for a submarine in the form of Scorpene. May be DCNS can help to further improve it and put in our own indigenous stuff like the AIP. Its better to stick with a single design and utilize the technology used in Arihant and keep building and improving Scorpene over a period of time.

MDL dont want the infrastructure created and the expertise gained in building scorpene to be changed again to suit the building of another submarine.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/m ... 373848.ece

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Aug 2014 19:47

Scorpenes are going on now, so if Navy needs to fill the gap of two kilos, why not order 2 scorpenes directly from france readymade, maybe even ask them to put Nirbhays in them too. Better buy a sub like Scorpene which is 340 days a year availability compared to pathetic russian 70 days a year availability sub.

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 03 Aug 2014 20:42

its simple, make 3 more aip scorpenes in mdl, buy 3 amur with vertically launched brahmos and then start designing your own conventional subs...why so much confusion i dont know

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 03 Aug 2014 21:34

abhik wrote:There is really no point in adding another submarine building line, it just won't be sustainable. Its best to go for additional Scorpions and a couple of Kilos(rather than Amurs) from Russia if it is absolutely required.

IIRC, aren't the Amurs a modified version of the Kilos? Perhaps I am oversimplifying this, would this be a totally different submarine line?

Gurus, any light on this would be helpful

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 04 Aug 2014 01:02

These articles by different authors establish that the Navy is a divided house when it comes to the vision of what our submarine force should look like. Can we blame civilian leadership in this situation? Surface branch on the other hand seems to have reconciled all philiosophies by ensuring Indian hulls are equipped with best of both Western and Russian kit. Wish it were to happen for submarines as well...

saptarishi wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ssian-Subs...
Though the Navy has asked the MoD to negotiate the purchase of two Amur subs, there is a difference of opinion among service officials about whether to buy Russian or Western-built vessels.

One faction favors the Russian-made AIP submarines, finding them more safe and robust while another group, mostly younger, prefers Western submarines based on a better score in electronics, control and sensors.

“Russian submarines are cheaper to maintain as the Indian Navy has invested heavily in creating relevant infrastructure to support the boats,” a senior Navy officer said. “Besides, there is adequate training on Russian submarines.”

Another officer rebutted: “While the Russian submarines are cheaper to buy initially, their support is expensive and has become an issue with the Indian Navy. While the French and the Western submarines are easier to maintain there are issues of transfer of technology of critical systems.”.....

dinesh_kumar wrote:...

It is, in fact, the differences in the western and the Russian design philosophies that have seriously divided the Directorate-General Naval Design-Submarine Design Group at the Naval Headquarters (NHQ), stalemating for long the crucial decision on standardizing the diving depth and delaying indigenization. These differences persist, according to Vice Admiral K.N. Sushil (Retd.), an experienced submariner and former head of the Southern Naval Command, who personally prefers the western single hull design, despite the fact that Western suppliers will not transfer sensitive technologies (such as optronic masts) or do a “lot of hand-holding” that diffident Indian production companies still require, which only the Russians are prepared to do.

The indecision has prevented, he maintains, the establishing of other standards such as for “the operating pressures of the hydraulics and high pressure air systems, pressure hull materials, weld normative, hydraulic and high-pressure air pipelines, manifolds, valves, etc.” common [to nuclear and conventional submarines] and deterred the build-up of local capacity. ....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2014 02:22

Russia offered the Amur/Lada to us aeons ago.The Rip Van Winkle in charge of the Deaf Min.,aka "the Saint",even after a decade of slumber did nothing about the sub crisis in the IN ,even after the two Kilo tragedies.
Here is a report last yr. about the offer.

As far as the decision as to which subs to buy,composition of the sub fleet,etc.,a decisive CNS would've taken a suitable decision.I know 2 past chiefs who did take decisive decisions.Adm.Bhagwat put forth the sub perspective plan for two lines,one western origin subs and another eastern origin subs,ages ago. Had Uncle George not sacked him,we would have had a smooth sub replacement and modernisation underway by now.If I'm not mistaken,a decision to acquire/build the Amur was taken by the IN a decade ago but stalled by someone. If you start however appointing yes-men as chiefs and no-men as def. mins,like that great zero,AKA,whose boss was much worse,a minus quantity,who mortgaged our foreign policy,defence and security to Uncle Sam,we end up being in sh*t street as we are now.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2013/09/27 ... html[quote]
Lada submarines: Made to defend and win
September 27, 2013 Vladimir Karnozov, VPK
The Lada class diesel-electric submarines are designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, defence of naval bases and sea lanes, as well as for reconnaissance. The Rubin bureau is willing to modify the export version’s basic design to meet the requirements of the Indian Navy.

India, Russia in talks over another nuclear submarine
India asks Russia to upgrade two submarines Indra-2014 drills ended successfully in Russia's Far East
Lada submarines: Made to defend and win
The lead Project 677 ship, called St. Petersburg. Source: Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

Yury Dolgoruky, the lead ship of Project 955’s borey class is already in the Russian Navy, and the serial ships Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh are scheduled for delivery at the end of the year. The Russian Navy, however, also needs a certain number of other ships of various classes, including non-nuclear submarines.

Within the framework of the state armament program, there are plans to build twenty diesel-electric submarines by the year 2020. Six of them will are Varshavyanka Projects 636.3 vessels and the remaining 14 are the modified Lada Project 677 ships.
пустым не оставлять!!

Indian Navy close to floating $8 bn tenders for 6 submarines

The fourth generation submarine Lada, developed by the Rubin Design Bureau is the embodiment of the vast experience gained from the development and improvement of the second and third generation submarines, which have become best-sellers in the global naval armament market.

The design and capabilities of the non-nuclear ships allow them to be used both in coastal and offshore waters, including the Baltic and the Black Sea. The Lada submarines are not only able to defend the naval base and the coast, but also to explore and destroy the enemy’s submarines and surface ships.

The development of the Lada project was launched in the mid- 1980s. The first technical project was approved in 1993, and the final, with a significant increase in the basic performance characteristics - in 1997.

Foreign countries are showing an increased level of attention to the Rubin-designed boats. There was great interest in the LIMA 2013 exhibition in Malaysia, which traditionally brings together representatives of many countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The region is expected to account for more than half the sales of non-nuclear submarines in 2030. This is largely due to the fact that the Lada and its export modifications Amur have a significant advantage over their European competitors - they are able to deliver volley missile strikes. A fully automatic rocket has been applied on the Lada – a torpedo complex with an unprecedented striking power for a ship with such displacement.

Lada vessels are single-hulled, with minimal displacement allowing for reduced noise signature and improved propulsion quality. The class marks the first usage of the Russian navy of a mono-hull design since the 1940s.

According to chief designer Igor Molchanov, the Lada’s design greatly reduces its displacement, requires less metal, which entails a lower production cost, and also improves the acoustic performance and makes the submarine less noticeable.
пустым не оставлять!!

Yasen-class nuclear attack submarines to give Russia major edge

Molchanov says the fourth generation submarine has a number of fundamental differences from vessels of the third generation. First of all, the new submarine has a more powerful missile-torpedo armament. While cruise missiles can only be used from two torpedo tubes on the Varshavyanka, on the larger export-version of the Lada, the Amur-1650, cruise missiles can be used from all from all six tubes. In addition, the Amur-1650 features a low intrinsic noise level. Finally, compared to the Varshavyanka, the Amur-1650 has a greater cruising range in the underwater economic mode. The vessel has a general service life of at least 25 years.

The Lada also has the Lira, a modern sonar complex with antenna systems, which in their surface area equate to those used on nuclear submarines. The ship’s vital functions provide a comprehensive automated system for controlling the Lithium combat and technical equipment – it manages its energy, as well as all the functions associated with combat weapons.

The lead Project 677 ship, called St. Petersburg was built by JSC Admiralteyskiye Verfi. The first factory operation tests took place in 2006. In the four years of testing, the boat has gone out into the sea more than ten times with a total duration of about one year. After it had been transferred to the navy in May 2010, the ship participated in several exercises of the Baltic Fleet.

The Lada class vessels also have tremendous potential for further upgradation, especially when it comes to its electronic equipment. The project has satisfied the necessary condition of providing an open architecture for upgrading electronic systems.

The Rubin Design Bureau is also willing to modify its new vessel’s basic design to suit customer-specific requirements. Potential buyers like India have taken a keen interest in submarines with air-independent propulsion. The bureau is looking to manufacture an appropriate version of the Amur-1650 that would satisfy the requirements of the Indian Navy. India is on the lookout for a submarine that would allow hydrogen to be produced directly on the boat by reforming diesel.[/quote]

Xcpt:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ia/677.htm

The construction of the Project-677 Lada-class diesel submarine, named the St. Petersburg, began in 1997. The similar Lada-class (some sources consider this to be a Project 877 boat) Sankt Petersburg was begun the same day at the same facility for the Russian Navy. As of January 2000 the Sankt Petersburg was said to be about 30% complete and the Amur 1650 about 7% complete, and subsequently this boat faded from view. As of early 2001 Russian officials were predicting that the Sankt Petersburg would be launched during 2001. As of 2002 work on the Sankt Petersburg was suspended.

The Project 677 Lada submarines would have high submerged cruising range and endurance, combat efficiency and reliability, and low acoustic signature. The sonar equipment includes highly sensitive direct-listening transducers at the forward end and a towed transducer array. It would be outfitted with six torpedo tubes, and its 18 weapons would comprise a mix of torpedoes and torpedo-tube launched missiles. Measuring 67 meters in length and 7.2 meters wide, it would include an anechoic tile coating on the outer hull and a skewed 7-blade propeller. The vessel's surface speed would be 10 kt; submerged 21 kt. The submerged cruising range using economic speed is 500 nautical miles at 3 kt. The maximum diving depth is 250 m, with an endurance of 45 days with a crew of 34.

In addition:

acoustic field of the submarine has been considerably reduced (in comparison with submarines of previous generations - several times);
radio-electronic equipment of a new generation has been installed with a state-of-the-art element base;
an integrated system has been installed for automatic control of submarine and its combat and technical facilities;
an inertial navigation complex has been installed which provides safety of navigation and determination of motion parameters with specified missile armament accuracy during long underwater operation;
a variable-speed propulsion plant of a new design has been fitted;
a storage battery with increased service life has been installed.

New types of production and technological processes have been introduced in the course of construction, as follows:

a work bay has been equipped for production of non-penetrating retractable devices and hoist masts;
a testing bench has been produced for the above retractable devices and hoist masts;
a technology of installation of highly sensitive hydrophone antenna of sonar system "LIRA" has been developed and introduced;
a technology of application has been introduced for anti-sonar coating of a new generation "Molniya" ("Lightning");
a technology of painting with "VICOR" of improved stability has been introduced.

Scorpenes,exorbitant cost even for non-AIP boats,why the advice given by many analysts to build N-boats instead.When we are building SSBNs,why can't we simultaneously build a "second line" of SSGNs? For conventional boats MDL will be free 5-6 yrs. from now when the 6 Scorpenes have been completed.

Here's an excellent piece about the return of titanium hulled subs to the RuN.4 Soviet era subs have returned to service.As the piece says,their (incredibly strong and expensive) hulls which can dive 600m+ do not corrode and can last for "100 years".

The durability of titanium submarines was demonstrated in 1992, when the Kostroma nuclear submarine collided with the U.S. Los Angeles. The deck cabin of the Russian vessel was slightly damaged, whereas the American boat had to be written off.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2013/03/13 ... 22889.html

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 04 Aug 2014 02:54

Ajay Sharma wrote:
abhik wrote:There is really no point in adding another submarine building line, it just won't be sustainable. Its best to go for additional Scorpions and a couple of Kilos(rather than Amurs) from Russia if it is absolutely required.
IIRC, aren't the Amurs a modified version of the Kilos? Perhaps I am oversimplifying this, would this be a totally different submarine line?

Gurus, any light on this would be helpful

Not at all, The Amur is completely a new design and a single hull submarine. The Kilo was double hull & 3000 tons but both the Amurs are single hull and much much lighter:

This is from the comparison chart in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur-class_submarine

1.) Amur 950: 1065 tons, length 56 meters,
Armament= 4 533mm tubes, 16 torps., missiles, mines total + 10 vertical silos for BrahMos missiles

2.) Amur 1650: 1765 tons, 66.8 meters,
Armament = 6 533mm tubes, 18 torps., mines total.

I think they've by mistake swapped the armaments in chart.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2014 03:41

Amurs also carry 18 weapons.Their crew is much smaller,35.It will carry BMos-M if inducted.Incidentally,the baton of CEO for the BMos Corp. has passed on.Dr.Pillai has done a truly magnificent job for the nation.Let's hope his successor,Sudhir Kumar Mishra takes it to new heights.We wish him and BMos Corp. well.

Here is also an excellent page for pics of Amur with BMos,and other Russian subs and ships.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=russi ... 491%3B1459

http://www.brahmand.com/news/BrahMos-we ... /1/15.html
BrahMos welcomes Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, its new CEO & MD

NEW DELHI: Top missile scientist, Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, OS, CC R&D, joins BrahMos Aerospace, an Indian-Russian Joint venture, as the new Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director (CEO & MD) on 1st August, 2014.

Sudhir Kumar Mishra took over BrahMos - the most successful missile company of the nation - and has said that his top priorities will be further indigenisation of the system and timely deliveries to the armed forces.

Sudhir K Mishra, who graduated from the Department of Mechanical Engineering (1982), Jabalpur Government Engineering College, went on to join DRDO and became its top missile scientist. After graduating from GEC Jabalpur he completed his MTech from IIT Chennai and is currently pursuing his doctorate from NIT, Warangal.

He is decorated DRDO Scientist and has been felicitated with the 'DRDO Scientist of the year 2009' award by the Prime Minister of India.

Having looked after all major missile programmes as Director Missile Programme DRDO Headquarters Sudhir K Mishra is all set for his new and challenging responsibility as CEO & MD of BrahMos.

Sudhir K Mishra has coordinated several international joint missiles development programmes with Russia, Israel and France. He has also worked closely with present DRDO chief and SA to RM, Dr Avinash Chander. He joined DRDL, Hyderabad in 1984 and worked with Dr APJ Abdul Kalam in Design and Development of several missiles systems under the IGMDP including the Agni missile programme. He has also had prior experience with BrahMos as Programme Manager in Project PJ-10 DRDL, Hyderabad.

He also worked as Technical Adviser (Defence Technology) in Embassy of India, Moscow, coordinating activities about BrahMos, and initiated several R&D projects. He has represented DRDO in Inter-Governmental meetings with Russia and France. He has worked as Director for International Cooperation in DRDO to steer collaboration projects with foreign countries.

BrahMos Aerospace is the producer of world's only supersonic cruise missile BRAHMOS. This universal missile is a precision strike weapon for Army, Navy & Air Force. BRAHMOS can be fitted in ships, Mobile Launchers, Submarines and Aircraft against land and sea targets.

After proving its prowess with unmatched speed, precision and power, in land, sea and sub-sea, BRAHMOS air-launched version is getting ready to be test-flown from the Su-30MKI fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force by the year end.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Aug 2014 10:07

Informative report on Russian sub building yards,types built at the yards,etc.

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/ru ... -behavior/
Russia Submarine Import and Export Behavior

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 04 Aug 2014 11:00

Dhananjay wrote:Not at all, The Amur is completely a new design and a single hull submarine. The Kilo was double hull & 3000 tons but both the Amurs are single hull and much much lighter:

Thanks. I had done a quick dirty job of referring wiki and it had stated "It is advertised as an export version of the Lada class, a modernised version of the Kilo-class submarine with improved acoustic stealth, new combat systems, and an option for air-independent propulsion (AIP)"