Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Jan 2015 18:40

Prakash Katoch ‏@KatochPrakash 27m27 minutes ago

Pakistani boat that blew itself up could have been an attempt to ram an Indian naval vessel like USS Cole or installation at sea / shore.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 02 Jan 2015 18:46

Looks like the CG and IN are given a free hand: "View all Pak vessels as jihadi threats", Indian Navy was told

http://www.oneindia.com/india/boat-of-t ... icle-tweet

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Jan 2015 21:47

Karthik S wrote:Looks like the CG and IN are given a free hand: "View all Pak vessels as jihadi threats", Indian Navy was told

http://www.oneindia.com/india/boat-of-t ... icle-tweet

How accurate.

nevin · Post by **nevin** » 02 Jan 2015 23:08

http://i62.tinypic.com/30kajnt.jpg

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 02 Jan 2015 23:16

What is that.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 02 Jan 2015 23:19

Looks like IAC1 picture.

nevin · Post by **nevin** » 02 Jan 2015 23:32

that's work at night on the IAC at Cochin Shipyard. The angled deck for landing is integrated. Can see it clearly from the top of the hotel there, though fotography from there is a big no. this one is taken from the parking lot there.

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 04 Jan 2015 05:52

pushkar.bhat wrote:News just in. A Pakistani trawler intercepted at high seas 36 KM from Porbunder blew itself up. Link to the news Item on ToIlet Paper Website

pushkar.bhat Ji :

It is 365 KM NOT 36 KM.

Cheers

John · Post by **John** » 04 Jan 2015 20:23

nik wrote:
anand_sankar wrote:@Nik

Do your math before commenting.

If the fuel bill is $300 million per year, the carrier will have to burn 119 million liters of fuel oil per year. (Fuel oil is today around $300 per barrel. So you can buy 1 million barrels for $300 million. One barrel equals 119 litres)

Not regularly keeping up and just saw your post - you did not complete your math which I did a while back. Here is my calc

Assume 65K carrier requires 6 LM2500 engines (going by 4 for 40K IAC)

Fuel consumption per hour in lb = 6 turbines * 0.354 SFC lb/shp-hr (from GE site) * 40,500 shp = 86K lb

Fuel consumption in litres per hr = 86K lb *('1/6.8') gallon/lb*3.78 litres/gallon = 48K litres / hr

Fuel consumption in a year = 48K liters *350 days *24 hrs = 400 million liters

Fuel cost assuming 1$ per liter jet fuel (from IBN) = 400 million $ per year

No carrier runs full blast throughout the year - and fuel prices will never be at lows seen today while carrier life is 30~40 years. Go nuts with scenarios and see my 300 million $ conclusion hold up.

Running cost of a decent carrier 'task force' is north of 1 billion $ per year easy ...

Those figures are ridiculously high even all 3 invincible class carrier cost less than 150 million pounds to operate/year and that includes fuel, personnel etc.

member_28802 · Post by **member_28802** » 05 Jan 2015 20:27

One more deal cleared for IN for frontline frigates and Missile Boats

Indian Navy selects OTO Melara 127/64 LW gun

And This is how it works

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 09 Jan 2015 02:23

From BR homepage:

Navy expedites plan to buy 12 US-2i amphibious planes from Japan - Huma Siddiqui, Financial Express

Under the ‘Buy and Make (global)’ category of the Defence Procurement Procedure 2013, the Indian Navy is moving ahead with a proposal to acquire 12 US-2i aircraft from Japanese company ShinMaywa in 2015 for $1.65 bn. “This is being discussed as part of the Services Capital Acquisition Plan (SCAP) for 2015 at a meeting in the ministry of defence,” a source told FE.

There have been several rounds of hectic discussions on whether India will be permitted to assemble the aircraft indigenously, giving it access to Japanese military technology, and whether Japan will help in marketing and export, which will be a win-win situation for both.

Tokyo has been pursuing the sale of this aircraft to India as part of stepped-up bilateral defense cooperation for three years now. This was also discussed during the high-profile visit of PM Narendra Modi to Japan in 2014. “Also, both sides are interested in building the aeronautics industry in India.

The two sides have been working on several issues including: whether Japan will provide only the kit of the plane and India will carry out modification to fit the required sensors for sea surveillance.

A joint working group, a multi-ministerial team, was set up last year to iron out certain details, including important modifications that would allow Japan to export the aircraft to India without violating its self-imposed defense export restrictions.

Sources have indicated the acquisition process has been put on fast track as this is a deal which has been cleared at the highest political level. In the last few months there have been a lot of exchanges between the Indian Navy and executives of Japanese company ShinMaywa.

Chances are a private Indian partner might be roped in for licence manufacturing in India and the Japanese company will provide all technical support to the Indian partner for re-export of the planes.

The Indian Navy might end up with bigger orders for US-2i amphibious planes since the current requirement is for the first batch.

Japan, which has self-imposed ban on defense exports from 1967, was able to get special permission for export of this plane to India, but the Japanese have seen great interest in this planes from other countries too but its own policies will hinder sale of the planes.

The US-2i is a large Japanese Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) amphibious aircraft, which could significantly boost the Indian Navy’s capability for air-sea rescue.

Strategically, the US-2 is important for India beyond its relationship with Japan. The US-2i has a more than modest range of 4,500 km and India’s aircraft will be stationed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in the Bay of Bengal.

Procurement of these planes directly counters Indian fears of China’s burgeoning “string of pearls” strategy in Southeast Asia.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Jan 2015 07:49

recently I had a chat with a technical branch officer who have worked on the fly by wire system of mig29k, though he was apprehensive on divulging any details but the plan for acquiring more than ... and deployment of ships... He all so praised the sea keeping of rajput class which he consider one of the best in the world. I told him about my affiliation with BR and he showed interest to join in.

Edited for content - JE Menon

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 09 Jan 2015 12:19

^^^
thank menon ji for moderating , i was too excited to pass on the info to fellow BRfites !!

Well if people have missed this report on varunastra , how it was being lost and recovered during testing phase. Enjoy.

From TOI

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 09 Jan 2015 14:03

Bankim wrote:One more deal cleared for IN for frontline frigates and Missile Boats

Indian Navy selects OTO Melara 127/64 LW gun

And This is how it works

Here is a better Janes article with more details.

Its great that we are finally up gunning the fleet. I always found it to be a sore point when people point out that our destroyers are armed with a smaller gun than our frigates (Talwars).

The November 2013 tender stipulated that three of the 13 naval guns would be imported and the remaining 10 licence-built by state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)

OTO Melara's 127/64 LW - Vulcano gun system has been chosen to arm 13 Shivalik-class frigates and Delhi-class destroyers

I Hope we build more for the Kolkatas and their follow ons as well.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 09 Jan 2015 22:57

^ Is the 127 mm gun capable of anti-missile defence? 76 mm cannons are good to be CIWS.

Btw, here is the ORV Sagar Nidhi: <whistles>

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 09 Jan 2015 23:44

John wrote:
nik wrote:
Running cost of a decent carrier 'task force' is north of 1 billion $ per year easy ...
Those figures are ridiculously high even all 3 invincible class carrier cost less than 150 million pounds to operate/year and that includes fuel, personnel etc.

Correct...As all three Invincible class will be spending time mothballed in port

Please check first two google links for operating a carrier task force and will appreciate my guess estimate. Here they are for

US carrier task force - http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/pub ... _FINAL.pdf
Cost categories in 98' dollars - http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... 8.appj.pdf

A quote from first link - Carrier strike groups are expensive to buy and to operate. Factoring in the total life-cycle costs of
an associated carrier air wing, 5 surface combatants and one fast-attack submarine, plus the nearly 6,700 men and women to crew them, it costs about $6.5 million per day to operate each strike group.

US carrier task force yearly cost - $ 6.5 million * 350 = 2.3 Billion $
Indian Carrier task force yearly 'estimated' cost - $ 1 billion
Pros and cons - US carriers are nuclear powered while ours are oil burning. They spread out fixed infrastructure costs over 10 plus 'similar' carriers while we will basically be operating three different types. Our labor costs are lower than US. US carriers are bigger and more expensive upfront while ours are half the size but have high import content >> higher 'running' costs.

What pains is that we have half of half carrier in INS Vikramaditya but will be paying full carrier cost to keep it running. Hopefully IAC-1 and 2 show up soon and we can relegate INS Vikramaditya to back up/training carrier status.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 10 Jan 2015 00:07

^^Shaun,
Thanks for posting the scan. Freaking brilliant work by National Institute of Ocean technology and Naval Science and Technology laboratory, in recovering the torpedo. Fascinating to read!

These SDRE scientists are quietly working their behinds off to keep us safe. Thanks a million!

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jan 2015 00:12

The article says this happened on Nov 6th - that was the day the TRV sank killing five sailors (the sailors lost their life trying to save the civilians). I think this was the same incident - too much of a coincidence otherwise. So they were testing the Varunastra torpedo and it was the scientists' lives that those sailors saved.

Interesting ...

John · Post by **John** » 10 Jan 2015 02:21

nik wrote:
What pains is that we have half of half carrier in INS Vikramaditya but will be paying full carrier cost to keep it running. Hopefully IAC-1 and 2 show up soon and we can relegate INS Vikramaditya to back up/training carrier status.

I am lost

are you talking about fuel cost or operational cost nearly most 2.3 billion cost for US carrier fleet is due to personnel and supplies. And Carrier strike group itself is made up of countless gas and diesel fueled vessels which offset any fuel savings from the carrier. As i said earlier your assumption a carrier with 6 LM2500 turbines costs are incorrect it would be no more than 50+ million based on operations'. If you are figures were true just fueling up USN's destroyer squadron (each have 4 LM2500) would take up most of 2.3 billion cost of US carrier fleet budget...

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 10 Jan 2015 03:53

@ John - My posts have said 1 billion for fielding a carrier task force. Why have a carrier when you cannot afford the needed 'task force' elements. Akin to buying a hot sports car but having no money for 'right' tires and wheels.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 10 Jan 2015 04:11

Aditya G wrote:^ Is the 127 mm gun capable of anti-missile defence? 76 mm cannons are good to be CIWS.

Btw, here is the ORV Sagar Nidhi: <whistles>

Yes the 5 Inch (127 MM) gun can fire effectively in anti-aircraft / anti missile role. It is slower than the 3 Inch (76 MM) guns, however the Vulcano package has a better fire control computer leading to more accurate rounds.

from what i have been able to gather the differences between the guns are

127 MM

*Better fire control
*35 Rounds per minute maximum fire rate
*30 Km range standard. 120 Km range for extended range round.

76 MM

*120 Rounds per minute fire rate (super rapid version)
*16 Km range standard. 40 Km range for extended range rounds.

So over all, bigger and heavier rounds which can be lobbed more accurately over longer distances. So instead of wasting expensive cruise missiles or antiship missiles to pound Karachi or Gwadar we should now be able to stand off and use Naval bombardment instead.

We lost (albeit not completely) this capability when we retired our older EX-RN destroyers and cruisers in the 70s and I am very pleased that we are finally getting it back.

EDIT: And P.S I agree. The Sagar Nidhi is a Beauty.

wig · Post by **wig** » 12 Jan 2015 09:59

India to ramp up amphibious capabilities with four warships

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had re-issued a request for proposal (RFP) to Indian private sector shipyards in September to build four amphibious assault ships, also called the Landing Platform Docks (LPD) in naval parlance. Each of these will approximately cost Rs 6,000 crore and are expected to deliver over the next 10 years.
Each of these ships will be anything between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. The Indian shipyards have been asked to locate their own foreign collaborator. “The bids have come in,” a source in the Navy said. The RFP was sent to ABG, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), and Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering.
The successful private shipyard and its foreign collaborator will be given order for two such ships and the two others will be made by the MoD-owned Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam, at the same price being paid to the private builder.
This signals an important change in the long-term strategic plan as this will be huge jump over the existing capability of launching offensive sea-borne. The LPDs are essentially the first step towards increasing capability to launch “out-of-country operations”.
The LPDs are essentially a modern-day sea-based version of the Roman epic “Trojan horse”. Each carries, in its huge lower deck, hundreds of Indian Army troops with tanks, vehicles and cargo. Such a ship can deliver men and equipment near a sea beach and does not need a berthing dock, hence providing the option for landing thousands of troops near a spot chosen to attack.
The size of the LPDs indicates the Indian Navy’s growing amphibious warfare capacity. As of now, the biggest such variety of vessel is INS Jalashwa, a 16,900 tonne ship. Another five warships classified as Landing ship tank large (LST-L) are some 5,600 tonnes each, another four ships are just 1,100 tonnes and lastly the smallest are 650 tonnes and six of these are in service.
Forces that move across sea are referred to as “amphibious task force”. At present, India has the capability to move a Brigade, some 5,000 men, using the lone LPD, INS Jalashwa, along with a fleet of five smaller 5,600-tonne (LST-Ls) each of which can carry 10 tanks, 11 combat trucks and 500 troops.
Each of the new LPDs will have three times the capacity and have multi-role helicopters, including heavy lift helicopters to provide even greater flexibility.
Foreign shipbuilders offering such ships include DCNS of France, Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Fincantieri of Italy, South Korea’s Hanjin Heavy Industries & Constructions Co and Navantia of Spain.
India has sought a vessel of 213 metre, endurance at sea for 45 days, the vessel must be able to house combat vehicles (including main battle tanks, infantry combat vehicles and heavy trucks on one or more vehicle deck), and the vessel should be able to undertake all-weather operations involving heavy lift helicopters of up to 35 tonne.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 29035.html

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Jan 2015 15:18

I think Americans are missing a trick by not participating in these LPD efforts. There's a potential to sell power-plants, helicopters, self-defense suits, comm equipment and other related equipment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jan 2015 17:23

US amphibs are too large,45-50,000t.The San Antonio designs are also not suitable as they do not have a flat top configuration.The Juan Carlos design which Oz is building could be a basis for a design,but since we have already launched the IAC-1,a serious look at modifying that hull could be looked at.What is needed is a well-deck and decks for MBTs,MICVs,miscellaneus support vehicles and eqpt. with ana romoure deck capable of operating heavy assault helos,attack helos and even STOVL aircraft. If the3 tonnage is going to be 40,000t+,then even the NLCA could operate from it to provide close support.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 12 Jan 2015 17:31

JTull wrote:I think Americans are missing a trick by not participating in these LPD efforts. There's a potential to sell power-plants, helicopters, self-defense suits, comm equipment and other related equipment.

Just some noob questions.

- Can we able to build 9-12 tonne class helicopter, which can used in ships (like Sea kings), troop carriers (like Mi-17).
- If we start the cycle now, 5-6 years enough to start production.

Because, with ships that are lined to be commissioned, we need at least 100-150 naval copters and equivalent numbers to Army/BSF. Means we need 300-350 copters in that class in 5-15 years.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jan 2015 19:40

Philip wrote:US amphibs are too large,45-50,000t.The San Antonio designs are also not suitable as they do not have a flat top configuration.The Juan Carlos design which Oz is building could be a basis for a design,but since we have already launched the IAC-1,a serious look at modifying that hull could be looked at.What is needed is a well-deck and decks for MBTs,MICVs,miscellaneus support vehicles and eqpt. with ana romoure deck capable of operating heavy assault helos,attack helos and even STOVL aircraft. If the3 tonnage is going to be 40,000t+,then even the NLCA could operate from it to provide close support.

The article states:

Each of these ships will be anything between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes

I am sure we can request that the US step de-size their ships to fit what the In wants.

JTull wrote:I think Americans are missing a trick by not participating in these LPD efforts. There's a potential to sell power-plants, helicopters, self-defense suits, comm equipment and other related equipment.

Not a good idea. The F-35 cannot fly. Their ships will not float.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jan 2015 12:49

The tonnage is almost the same as IAC-1.Therefore,it would be worth examining that hull modified as so much work,etc. has gone into it and many of the key design elements/components could be used again.The "wheel needn't be redesigned" in toto.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Jan 2015 13:55

Actually it would be easier to start from scratch rather than redesign the IAC-1. The inclusion of a well deck, separate storage areas for tanks and other vehicles, the provision of bunking areas for troops will necessitate numerous changes to be made. These changes will in turn require other changes be made leading to more delays and budget increases. Although an AC and a LHD may look similar on the exterior they are completely different beasts on the inside. While it is true many elements can be borrowed or adapted from one to the other, there are many more which will require a complete redesign.

As a Jingo I would like to see us coming up with our own design. But with the Directorate of Naval Design occupied with the IAC - 2 and private players not willing to spend much on R&D, I fear we may just end up buying an overpriced design.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Jan 2015 16:18

NRao wrote: Not a good idea. The F-35 cannot fly. Their ships will not float.

Sure. Whatever you say, sir!

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Jan 2015 18:42

NRao wrote:
I am sure we can request that the US step de-size their ships to fit what the In wants.

De-size a 50K ship to 35-40K? I know you said you are sure but with 10-15K reduced size it wont be the same ship anymore!! INS Jalashwa is 15K in displacement.

Like xave said, either start a design from scratch or look for an existing design which fits our needs.

John · Post by **John** » 14 Jan 2015 21:06

Speaking of Aussies they actually didn't have US participate in the tender because their design was too big for their requirements.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2015 21:33

De-size a 50K ship to 35-40K? I know you said you are sure but with 10-15K reduced size it wont be the same ship anymore!! INS Jalashwa is 15K in displacement.

Well, to fit the requirements.

However, IMHO, IF India wants to influence between the Red Sea and all the way to Vladivostok, then it should be a good idea to ramp up to "US (or other) standards" (provided philosophies meet).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jan 2015 21:33

You can't scale an LHD by nearly a third and still have a competitive design that leverages your risk reduction work due to it being a proven ship. Without that they are hardly competitive to Juan Carlos types that are proven designs for their class

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2015 22:30

Reboot.

The original postS were:

I think Americans are missing a trick by not participating in these LPD efforts.

followed by:

US amphibs are too large

There is nothing to prevent - if need be - asking the US to help design to fit an IN need. "Scale" was used in that context. Tell them what the needs are and I am sure they can help with a design for the need. Scale up or down, does not matter. Need matters.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Jan 2015 13:54

brar_w wrote:You can't scale an LHD by nearly a third and still have a competitive design that leverages your risk reduction work due to it being a proven ship. Without that they are hardly competitive to Juan Carlos types that are proven designs for their class

Your definition of proven designs means only one thing : be an importer of yesterday's technology. Without taking risks we'll never be at the cutting edge.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jan 2015 15:22

JTull wrote:
brar_w wrote:You can't scale an LHD by nearly a third and still have a competitive design that leverages your risk reduction work due to it being a proven ship. Without that they are hardly competitive to Juan Carlos types that are proven designs for their class
Your definition of proven designs means only one thing : be an importer of yesterday's technology. Without taking risks we'll never be at the cutting edge.

In an era where you have to formally compete with others in the open marketplace if your design/proposal has an inherently larger risk attached to it, compared to the competition that risk better be worth it, otherwise you would end up on the loosing end of the competition.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 15 Jan 2015 16:35

The main technological leap in these amphibious assault ships are in the propulsion field. The podded electric drive units on the Mistral and Juan Carlos represent the largest gain in terms of technology for the IN. Most modern navies are beginning to switch over or consider these electric drives for almost every new ship class that is being designed, and we really need to develop or 'otherwise acquire' (at the cost of doing more screwdrivergiri ) this tech.

Every other tech improvement on the amphibs will be in terms of systems (such as radar, self defense systems etc) which will not require major structural changes and should be easily (in relative terms) adapted to other designs.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Jan 2015 03:09

Mihir wrote:John, my point is that the new Kolkatas are bristling with anti-ship and land-attack missiles, but lack capacity to carry as many SAMs as some of their contemporaries do (see Vishnu's post for a comparison). This leads me to believe that they are meant to pack the offensive punch while carrier-based fighters will mostly be used in a defensive role.

Moving this to naval discussion section but I think IN has more emphasis on multi purpose capabilities for its surface combatants rather than just primarily air defense purpose. Mig-29k with Uran AshM is currently the most deadliest AsuW carrier borne platform out there and "IF" Brahmos-M can be fitted on 29K it will only get more potent.

As for Kolkata we still don't have clarification on its armaments whether Barak-1 that are currently ordered are intended for P-15As, if so that would make their armament comparable to Daring class DDG (even with all Aster 16/32 payload)

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 16 Jan 2015 03:26

xave

If we were to go the Azipod route on the LHD's being planned. The main tech leap will not be in the azipods but if we were to go for azipods.
We will have to go diesel electric, This will encompass a whole lot of automation, to accomplish, however the same is commercially available off the shelf.
The running costs of the ships fall drastically as the prime movers can be switched on / off depending on the requirements.
Also new power hungry equipment like rail guns , e-malls , laser guns, to name a few , can be incorporated very easily into the design of these ships.
Also we do not need to go the azipod route with diesel electric.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 16 Jan 2015 03:54

Eric,

my comment about using azimuthal pods was to point out that in terms of technological gain, we have nothing else to gain from importing foreign LHD designs.

Everything else that goes into an LHD design from well decks to hangers to superstructure to flight deck all have been designed or can be designed and built by us. The only tech gain, if we go the import route, comes in terms of electric propulsion.

With that being said, you are of course correct that we do not need azimuthal thrusters to go electric. Conventional propellers, gears and shafts can be connected to electric motors a la diesel electric subs. And it is the safer option to take. However using azimuthal pods will have the advantage of freeing up loads of space taken up by the electric drives, the transmission, the shafts and associated ancillary equipment, while providing superior maneuverability (albeit at the cost of requiring dry dock for even maintenance). So personally I feel if we can develop or acquire this tech it might be beneficial.