Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Apr 2015 09:19

LOL.. recently spoke to somebody who was in the know about several 'denied" technologies for Indian programs.. he was cut up about the SD babus in Khan and how they made sure India didn't get approvals. So no matter what Ombaba says - the SD is not really pro India.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2015 10:12

The Q is not keeping Russian yards in business,any person with common sense would understand that extra ships of the same class would help standardization,training,ops availability,etc..We already operate 6 Talwars,much cheaper than the improved P-17As which have cost a bomb.The improved design and yards/firang collaborators have still to be identified.It will thus take another 5 years before the first P-17A arrives whereas 3-4 more Talwars could be built within that time. We also urgently need more ASW assets as the sub menace from the Sino-Pak JV is accelerating.Read this latest report on 3 new Chinese SSNs being commissioned soon. The IN does not have an unlimited budget to acquire only large warships.The Talwar class have been operating all over the IOR for years.No disrespect to them.

(http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/chi ... 72660.html
China to commission 3 nuclear submarines
Last Updated: Friday, April 3, 2015)

The pvt. yards must first walk before they can run.OPVs,minesweepers,missile craft,patrol craft,auxiliaries,shallow water ASW corvettes,etc. should be hived off to them first,as these will be required in larger number than major warships.Even a couple of the amphibs should be built in a pvt. yard as CSL will be busy with the next carrier after IAC-1.Once the capability/quality of pvt yards has been established,they could build more advanced warships.

Xcpt from a lengthy article.Good read.
Murky Waters: Naval Nuclear Dynamics in the Indian Ocean
Iskander Rehman
Report March 9, 2015

What are the potential ramifications of such developments for strategic anti-submarine warfare, particularly in the South Asian context? The impact of the spread of unmanned technologies on crisis stability and escalation control is one of growing importance that remains relatively underexplored in the security studies literature. The implications appear particularly significant in the Asian maritime domain, where conventional and nuclear-armed platforms are most likely to frequently interact.

The spread of undersea combat networks will render certain littorals increasingly impenetrable for manned submarines, whether nuclear or conventional. This will no doubt benefit states such as India and China, which appear naturally inclined to pursue bastion strategies by pushing strategic submarine operations further from the coast.

At the same time, it will accentuate difficulties for countries such as Pakistan, whose conventional submarines are ill-suited for extended deterrent patrols and whose short missile range, if it wishes to credibly threaten a variety of land-based targets, dictates that it patrol in close proximity to India’s coastline. This, in turn, could accentuate Pakistan’s “use or lose them” pressures in times of crisis. As UUVs come to play an increasingly central role in strategic ASW operations, countries like Pakistan, which do not have the means or technological infrastructure to continuously innovate in the field of robotics, may find themselves struggling to compete.175

Naval commanders wishing to engage in forward operations within an opponent’s near sea may be increasingly reticent to hazard expensive manned platforms such as submarines, preferring instead to deploy swarms of UUVs and underwater decoys to saturate and overwhelm defensive networks. Something of a paradox might then emerge, whereby submarine commanders grow more cautious in the deployment of expensive manned platforms but more aggressive in the use of unmanned systems for scouting, sabotage, and ASW operations. Experts have also commented on the development by multiple countries of long-duration unmanned tracking vessels for ASW missions, noting that the use of such platforms has the potential to be highly detrimental to crisis stability.176 This is particularly true in Asia, where naval nuclear actors will be operating relatively small fleets of SSBNs out of only a handful of locations, unlike during the height of the Cold War.

Read more at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/03/09 ... dian-ocean

PS:Echoing the quote,here is a report on the Pentagon's latest Unmanned creation.
The Pentagon has moved one step closer toward its goal of creating an unmanned, autonomous patrol ship. Set to drift in the high seas, the robotic Sea Hunter will silently follow potentially hostile submarines.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150403/1020 ... z3WPTigSAt

Though the Mary Celeste, one of the world’s most famous ghost ships, was sold at auction, the Pentagon will soon be launching its own high-tech version.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been developing an unmanned, 132-foot patrol boat for years. Called the Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV), the ships will detect and track diesel-powered subs, trailing from an observable distance like that awkward cousin at the family BBQ.

Artist's impression of a close-air-support aircraft with the Video Synthetic Aperture Radar (ViSAR) imaging the ground through a layer of clouds
Pentagon’s DARPA Develops Radar for Air Attacks Through the Clouds

DARPA recently finished a six-week series of tests off the coast of Mississippi which proved a critical aspect of the boat was successful: it didn’t sink. To test the radar and navigation software, engineers sent the ACTUV through a maritime obstacle course which included rocks, shoals, and even other vessels which intentionally behaved unpredictably.

The ACTUV passed with flying colors, all while sticking to the maritime laws outlined in the Convention on the international regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Already, DARPA at least has proof-of-concept, that an autonomous can navigate an ocean shared with more traditionally piloted craft.

The next step will be testing the ACTUV’s tracking capabilities. Further down the line, engineers will have to put the vessel through scenarios which involve "enemy ships" attempting to block its navigational systems.

And if all goes according to plan, ACTUVs would prove to be a cost-effective way to monitor ultra-quiet submarines deployed by Russia, China, and Iran.

"Instead of chasing down these submarines and trying to keep track of them with expensive nuclear-powered submarines, which is the way we do it now, we want to try and build this at significantly reduced cost," DARPA program manager Ellison Urban said during National Defense Association Even in Virginia. "It will be able to transit by itself across thousands of kilometers of ocean, and it can deploy for months at a time. It can go out, find a diesel-electric submarine, and just ping on it."

Theoretically, ACTUVs would never have to return to land, instead spending their entire existence chasing targets at sea like an autonomous Ahab. A bizarre combination of "Moby Dick" and "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150403/1020 ... z3WPTv3n6G

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 05 Apr 2015 10:18

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 4h 4 hours ago

I have a feeling Pipavav is a likely candidate for building Talwar class follow-ons in India.

Pipavav can build the Shivalik class in India with assistance from Mazagaon dock. MD will be building the next generation of P17A. So there is scope for building the P17's at Pipavav.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2015 11:19

The offer is for building the extra Talwars in an Indian shipyard.

2/04/2015 RIA Novosti
Russia has made the proposal to India that Project 11356 frigates with improved performance be built in the shipyards of that country. This was reported in an interview by Vladimir Ereshenko, the head of the regional department of Rosoboronexport, with RIA Novosti.

He headed the Rosoboronexport delegation in the LIMA’15 arms exhibition held in late March in Langkawi (Malaysia).

“We presented an offer to the Indian side regarding the construction in local shipyards of additional Project 11356 frigates with improved tactical and technical properties,” said Ereshenko.

According to him, these offers are currently being considered by the customer. “Technical negotiations will be held on this theme in the near future,” said the department head.

He emphasized that Project 11356 frigates have worked well for the Indian Navy: “There is a need for ships of this class. That is why building another series in India would be a completely logical step.”

Russia has supplied India with six Project 11356 ships between 2003 and 2013. These were built at the “Baltic” factory in Saint Petersburg and the Kaliningrad “Amber” factory. The first three ships have the Russian Club-N cruise missile complex on board while the next three frigates are armed with BrahMos cruise missiles of Russian-Indian manufacture

http://in.rbth.com/news/2015/04/02/russ ... 42363.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Apr 2015 13:57

Thanks but no thanks.shivalik is good enough. More should be built and the hull developed further, into B, C, D etc.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Apr 2015 13:57

Philip wrote:The Q is not keeping Russian yards in business,any person with common sense would understand that extra ships of the same class would help standardization,training,ops availability,etc..We already operate 6 Talwars,much cheaper than the improved P-17As which have cost a bomb.

1. We have the option of building more Shivaliks. Which you may have noticed confer all the benefits of logistical commonality.
2. The Talwars are much cheaper by virtue of being much less capable.
3. As per the RIR report (model of journalism that it is), the third set of Talwars are tagged at $1bn each, which I believe brings them into the 'cost a bomb' category.

The improved design and yards/firang collaborators have still to be identified.It will thus take another 5 years before the first P-17A arrives whereas 3-4 more Talwars could be built within that time. We also urgently need more ASW assets as the sub menace from the Sino-Pak JV is accelerating.Read this latest report on 3 new Chinese SSNs being commissioned soon. The IN does not have an unlimited budget to acquire only large warships.The Talwar class have been operating all over the IOR for years.No disrespect to them.

To repeat, we can stick with the in-service Shivalik class over the short term. And if 'large warships' aren't kosher, we can order further units of the Kamorta, which remains a better platform for sub hunting than an 'improved' Talwar.

Philip wrote:The offer is for building the extra Talwars in an Indian shipyard.

Here's a better idea - how about we build a (superior) Indian ship in an Indian shipyard.

John · Post by **John** » 05 Apr 2015 15:53

Viv S wrote: 1. We have the option of building more Shivaliks. Which you may have noticed confer all the benefits of logistical commonality.
2. The Talwars are much cheaper by virtue of being much less capable.
3. As per the RIR report (model of journalism that it is), the third set of Talwars are tagged at $1bn each, which I believe brings them into the 'cost a bomb' category
Here's a better idea - how about we build a (superior) Indian ship in an Indian shipyard.

They got the number mixed up, price of 1 billion is for p17a has nothing to do with talwar. From what I understand the 3rd batch will still cost around 500 mill each if it's built in Russia.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Apr 2015 16:50

John wrote:They got the number mixed up, price of 1 billion is for p17a has nothing to do with talwar. From what I understand the 3rd batch will still cost around 500 mill each if it's built in Russia.

The last order for Talwar was $370 mil per unit in 2006-07. A very modest inflation rate of 5% takes the cost to $600 mil a decade on. Factor in upgrades and that figure will easily push past $700 mil. Which doesn't make it a preferable alternative to the Kamorta or Shivalik, even on plain value-for-money (without factoring in the local production aspect).

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Apr 2015 17:02

Gents, no more foreign made surface combatants. The IN can design something on its own and have it built in India. It will develop indian designers and yards. No more imports.

John · Post by **John** » 05 Apr 2015 17:15

Viv S wrote:The last order for Talwar was $370 mil per unit in 2006-07. A modest inflation rate of 5% takes the cost to $600 mil for a contract signed next year. Factor in upgrades and that figure will easily push past $700 mil. Which doesn't make it a preferable alternative to the Kamorta or Shivalik, even on plain value-for-money (without factoring in the local production aspect).

2nd batch of Talwar was 1.5 billion for 3 vessels it included an increase $$ to cover Brahmos. IMO Overall cost for construction for vessels is where it was in 06 you thank lower commodity cost and that doesn't even factor in fall of rouble. Also Russians were even offering the newer Admiral Gorshkov for about 700 million and where claiming it is better bargain for price than P17A. So it would make no sense for 3rd batch of Talwar to cost anywhere close to that. As for cost of building Talwar locally your bet is good as mine it depends on competency of SY.

Talwar is a Multi purpose FFG so Kamorta is not a good comparison for it. From looks of things IN wants some more Frigates it can induct quickly and cheaply still P17A comes into the picture. Seems like they don't have faith that Shivalik can do that. Not agreeing whether it is right or wrong but that's the situation right now.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Apr 2015 18:06

Has the Indian navy said that it wants more talwars? All we have seen is a proposal from the Russians that an Indian yard can make it. The shivalik is a better ship in all respects. So why not build more of them. By building more the Navy has the opportunity to reduce the unit cost. It is that simple.

srin · Post by **srin** » 05 Apr 2015 18:33

Talwar also has the Shtil for Air defense. Barak-8 is longer range, VLS and can handle a salvo (doesn't need reloads) - and it is ours.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Apr 2015 19:13

John wrote:2nd batch of Talwar was 1.5 billion for 3 vessels it included an increase $$ to cover Brahmos. IMO Overall cost for construction for vessels is where it was in 06 you thank lower commodity cost and that doesn't even factor in fall of rouble. Also Russians were even offering the newer Admiral Gorshkov for about 700 million and where claiming it is better bargain for price than P17A. So it would make no sense for 3rd batch of Talwar to cost anywhere close to that. As for cost of building Talwar locally your bet is good as mine it depends on competency of SY.

- Commodity costs have fallen but that'll have a bigger impact on high volume low margin manufactured goods (like automobiles) rather than highly engineered products. The cost of the Su-30MKI for example has more than doubled over the last decade.
- The ruble has fallen steeply but its been accompanied by runaway inflation and a high cost of capital. It wouldn't boost competitiveness the way a weak Euro would for (low inflation) EU states.
- Can you give me a source and year for the Gorshkov class being offered to India for $700 mil? The (domestic) cost of the Gorshkov was RUB 18bn or about $600 mil in 2011 (link). Five years hence one would expect it to be inching towards the $800 mil mark.

Talwar is a Multi purpose FFG so Kamorta is not a good comparison for it. From looks of things IN wants some more Frigates it can induct quickly and cheaply still P17A comes into the picture. Seems like they don't have faith that Shivalik can do that. Not agreeing whether it is right or wrong but that's the situation right now.

That part was in context of Philip's post about an impending buildup of enemy submarines. Fact is, if we want a sub hunter, we've got one in the Kamorta. If on the other hand, we want the capability of a full multi-role frigate we've got the option of the Shivalik. But to build a requirement around the Talwar is something of a Goldilocks solution. AFAIK the IN hasn't requested it and this is just another unsolicited offer from Russia.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Apr 2015 20:05

Pratyush wrote:Has the Indian navy said that it wants more talwars? All we have seen is a proposal from the Russians that an Indian yard can make it. The shivalik is a better ship in all respects. So why not build more of them. By building more the Navy has the opportunity to reduce the unit cost. It is that simple.

Doesn't matter. The Russians want to sell more Talwars. It is our duty to buy them.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Apr 2015 20:09

Karan M wrote:LOL.. recently spoke to somebody who was in the know about several 'denied" technologies for Indian programs.. he was cut up about the SD babus in Khan and how they made sure India didn't get approvals. So no matter what Ombaba says - the SD is not really pro India.

Agreed but it is changing and on the plus side the Pentagon is fully committed to sharing critical tech with India on identified projects. Both Ash Carter and Frank Kendall are fully on board.

The DoS is a piece of work—especially the democratic appointees.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 05 Apr 2015 20:21

Pratyush wrote:Has the Indian navy said that it wants more talwars?

1 Billion dollar question eh?

My guesstimate is that these additional Talwars are being shoved down our throat on back of some other commitment, like a second Akula.

We are hearing about this third tranche in Russian trade journals even when the second lot was being completed. What has changed is the offer to build them in an Indian yard. Probably a Russian response to our protest "PM is strict on Make in India onlee".

Both Talwar and Shivalik are capable ships, the latter in P17A configuration are probably going to be as powerful as the Kolkata DDGs. IMHO we should rather build more Kamortas in ASW and general purpose configurations instead of more capital ships and OPVs.

John · Post by **John** » 05 Apr 2015 21:47

Viv S wrote:- Commodity costs have fallen but that'll have a bigger impact on high volume low margin manufactured goods (like automobiles) rather than highly engineered products. The cost of the Su-30MKI for example has more than doubled over the last decade.

Original Su-30mki costs were subsidized and avionics not raw materials play a big cost in construction cost of aircraft. Ships and automobiles are different story. As for Gorshkov offer it was discussed here around 08 i can try to find the link, it was dismissed because it was unproven design.

Viv S wrote:That part was in context of Philip's post about an impending buildup of enemy submarines. Fact is, if we want a sub hunter, we've got one in the Kamorta. If on the other hand, we want the capability of a full multi-role frigate we've got the option of the Shivalik. But to build a requirement around the Talwar is something of a Goldilocks solution. AFAIK the IN hasn't requested it and this is just another unsolicited offer from Russia.

Yes but for what it is worth Russian Yantar chief said India navy took interest in the offer and is moving ahead with discussion last month. As per this article:
http://www.spsmai.com/exclusive/?id=477 ... s-frigates

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Apr 2015 23:59

the Gorshkov FFG, speaking of which, it weighs a measly 4500 tons as per wiki? That seems remarkably low for a ship of that size - what gives? Does the carbon fibre superstructure help? Packs a pretty solid punch in terms of weapons suite - 16 Oniks + Redut SAMs. Just one helo though. What do experts say ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Apr 2015 02:31

Cosmo_R wrote:
Karan M wrote:LOL.. recently spoke to somebody who was in the know about several 'denied" technologies for Indian programs.. he was cut up about the SD babus in Khan and how they made sure India didn't get approvals. So no matter what Ombaba says - the SD is not really pro India.
Agreed but it is changing and on the plus side the Pentagon is fully committed to sharing critical tech with India on identified projects. Both Ash Carter and Frank Kendall are fully on board.

The DoS is a piece of work—especially the democratic appointees.

Cosmo_R, those big names apart, reality is neither could do anything to prevent India from getting basic stuff .. basically there is a huge group of folks who dislike india and indians and their political/idealogical issues are impacting us..
As matter of fact, another person (this one from Khan) said similar stuff happened in the past with euros and "they quickly figured not to take our stuff".. with israel, france/europe, russian vendors all in the fray, only one suffering is khan TBH.

John · Post by **John** » 06 Apr 2015 03:54

Cain Marko wrote:the Gorshkov FFG, speaking of which, it weighs a measly 4500 tons as per wiki? That seems remarkably low for a ship of that size - what gives? Does the carbon fibre superstructure help? Packs a pretty solid punch in terms of weapons suite - 16 Oniks + Redut SAMs. Just one helo though. What do experts say ?

Off topic but carbon fibre reduces weight and of course reduces its radar signature. But there is questions of its durability and whether it can survive the harsh winter or battle damage.

Hanger seems much bigger and better designed than Talwar. But the mast seems too cluttered with sensors. But the hull seems to be capable of carrying far bigger payload than Neustrashimyy or Talwar.

But overall its unproven design and Russians launched it in 06, only last year was it commissioned which is not great case study for mass production.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 06 Apr 2015 04:11

Karan M wrote:

Cosmo_R, those big names apart, reality is neither could do anything to prevent India from getting basic stuff .. basically there is a huge group of folks who dislike india and indians and their political/idealogical issues are impacting us.

As matter of fact, another person (this one from Khan) said similar stuff happened in the past with euros and "they quickly figured not to take our stuff".. with israel, france/europe, russian vendors all in the fray, only one suffering is khan TBH.

KaranM, the game is influencing US policy towards India. We don't have the same clout as Israel does because of wealthy Jews like Sheldon Adelson who can scare the pants off the US Congress and end -run the GOTUS.

After Sheldon, the most influential are Boeing, GE, LM, NG, Raytheon and General Atomics. If we had any coherent strategy on Defense (we don't) we could tell DoS to take a flying leap.

On a RoI basis, paying off the MIC in the US reaps much greater return than spending on FR/EU/RU. We have to understand the game and play it well. Nobody dislikes money and the color of money is white.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Apr 2015 09:07

Sitanshu Kar ‏@SpokespersonMoD 2m2 minutes ago

#Project75MDL The first of the Scorpene submarines is ready for Undocking.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Apr 2015 09:24

Thank god!!!

Let her enter service without any major delays. The fleet is in desperate need of good news.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Apr 2015 09:46

Nobody is advocating shoving anything down the IN's throat.As the reports for some time ,since 2012,have said that the IN is exploring the poss of additional ships.The latest info is that the Russians have offered that the ships be built in Indian yards. The IN has to look holistically at its requirements,budget,etc,and with the surge in sub acquisitions by our mortal enemies,acquiring both subs and anti-sub warships are of great immediate importance .The problem with our DPSU yards is delays and cost-overruns.They are also fully loaded with orders.Time for pvt. yards to get involved and the GOI to give them orders.

Reg the P-28s,yes,dedicated ASW platforms,some reports say that the speed is actually 30kts,not less as has been put out.Cost has escalated from around $500m to $1B. A 2013 report said that the 3rd batch of Talwars,upgraded and armed with BMos,etc.,(4000t vs 3500t for the P-28) would also cost $1B /vessel.This may be why the IN is interested in a 3rd batch. Costs do matter.If built in India,saves more money and creates jobs in India.

More on the PLAN's N-sub/sub appetite.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 56619.html

Chinese navy prepares to launch three new and upgraded nuclear submarines
The submarines will be the most advanced in the PLA navy to date

Jamie Campbell
Sunday 05 April 2015

The Chinese Navy is preparing to commission three nuclear-powered attack submarines with the capability to fire supersonic anti-ship missiles, according to reports.

Earlier this week the China Central Television showed satellite images of three submarines anchored at an unidentified port.
They claimed that they were China’s most advanced Type-093G attack submarines.

The submarines are said to be an upgrade of the Type-093, which entered service several years ago and advancements include a longer teardrop hull and a vertical missile launching system, according to a report by China Daily.

According to the report the new variant is engineered to reduce noise, improve speed and mobility and fire the latest YJ-18 supersonic anti-ship missile, capable of causing significant damage to aircraft carriers.

China established its nuclear-powered submarine force in the 1970s but it was never openly revealed to the outside world until 2009 when two nuclear submarines took part in a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army navy’s founding.

Chi Yiliang, editor-in-chief of Modern Ships magazine, told China Daily: “Though China was comparatively late in developing advanced nuclear-powered submarines such as the Type -093G, we used a lot of the most cutting-edge technologies and equipment on our submarines, enabling them to compete with their foreign counterparts.”

Yin Zhuo, a senior expert with the navy, also spoke to China Daily: “Judging from the vessel’s design, the Type-093G should have strong anti-ship and counter-submarine capabilities. It is also likely to be upgraded with the capability of striking land targets with cruise missiles in the near future.”

The announcement comes after U.S Navy leaders told congress leaders in February that China now operates a greater number of attack submarines than the US military and is rapidly expanding the scope of its undersea missions and patrols.

Speaking before the House’s Seapower and Projections Force’s subcommittee Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy said that the Chinese Navy had rapidly expanded their undersea missions and patrols, according, according to Millitary.com.

“They are deploying some fairly amazing submarines. They’ve now had three deployments in the Indian Ocean. They are expanding where their submarines go.

“We know they are out experimenting and working and operating and certainly want to be in the world of advanced submarines.”

Mulloy cited Chinese production and testing of submarine launched weapons and said that one SSBN, or ballistic missile submarine capable of launching ballistic weapons, undertook a 95-day sea patrol.

This provoked speculation that nuclear-armed Chinese ballistic missile submarines would have the ability to strike at parts of Alaska and Hawaii from undersea locations in the Pacific.

The issue of Chinese naval and submarine development was addressed in the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual report to Congress in December last year, again reported by Military.com.

The commission said that Chinese plans for modernisation call for a rise in the number of attack submarines and SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs are now able to patrol with nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles that are capable of striking targets as far as 4,500 nautical miles away.

The commission also commented on areas of Chinese-Russian military developmental cooperation, saying that the two countries were working together on a joint deal to build new attack submarines.

The Commission wrote: “China is pursuing joint-design and production of four to six Russian advanced diesel-electric attack submarines containing Russia’s latest submarine sonar, propulsion, and quieting technology.

“The deal would improve the PLA Navy’s capabilities and assist China’s development of quiet submarines, thus complicating future US efforts to track and counter the PLA submarines.”

While it said that that the exact amount of Chinese military spending is difficult to identify, China’s projected defence spending for 2013 was estimated at $131 billion, around a sixth of what the US spends annually.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 10:04

seems to be a protective black cover over a conformal flank array sonar fairing.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 06 Apr 2015 10:20

Once 6 Scorpene rolls out, let use steel cutting, fabricating units to churn out hulls and stuff them with Indian sonars, equipment, torpedoes, AIP and other stuff and call them as Scorpion.

We had paid through nose for those machines and do not keep them idle or rusting. Its time to upgrade our skills of screw driver to making copies of machines with Indianized names.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 10:25

thats what cheen did with the Yuan class after building some 636 Kilos under license. they use a similar hull form and tested out as much local kit as available, licensing the rest.

I do not think P75I will bring any great advance in hull form over the scorpene, which looks quite similar to U212 and Amur the two contenders. a enlarged Scorpene to accomodate 4 UVLS tubes (3 missiles each) and a decent local AIP system would present the path of least upheaval.

but dharma says we need to upend the whole farm and do it all over again after wasting 10 yrs.

if we were getting a really large cutting edge design like SORYU I would support a new tender, but for Amur or U214 its not worth the time.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Apr 2015 10:47

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news- ... Cav0IdQsM= (August 28, 2014)

Following a naval tradition, in which warships never die, the new diesel-electric submarines will be named as per the old Foxtrot class boats, which were decommissioned decades ago. They were the first submarines of the Navy. The first two Scorpene submarines would be christened as Kalvari and Khanderi.
............
Jaitley also inaugurated a Rs 800 crore Mazgaon dock modernisation project to enhance the yard’s ability to construct warships and submarines.

Sitanshu Kar ‏@SpokespersonMoD 13m13 minutes ago

#Project75MDL Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar getting into the Scorpene submarine before it was to be undocked.

Shiv Aroor ‏@ShivAroor 23m23 minutes ago

Kalvari, India's 1st Scorpene attack submarine gets a tilak before being floated out Mazagon Dock, Mumbai today.

Sitanshu Kar ‏@SpokespersonMoD 31m31 minutes ago

#Project75MDL Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and Maharashtra CM Fadnavis at the Undocking event of 1st Scorpene.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Apr 2015 11:58

The IN has plumped for SSNs/SSGNs for the multi-capable role subs,not extra-large conventional subs like the Soryu. N-subs have a distinct advantage over conventional subs in open ocean blue-water ops.The Chinese surge in all kinds of subs,with new SSNs about to hit the water only underscores the IN's urgent need for more N-subs. Building our own N-subs is going to take a min of 5-6 years before the first sub is launched,as the design hasn't even been finalized. This leaves us with no other option but to lease 3-4 Akulas in total until our conventional sub strength improves apart from our own attack sub programme delivers. Apart from the mentioned in the media "Kash-a-lot"

,other Akulas too may be available,as the RuN is acquiring several new subs,both SSBN and SSGN.

Medium sized conventional AIP subs equipped with BMos and advanced torpedoes should be adequate to deal with the threat from Pak.Numbers are v.important in the light of Pak's plan to acquire 8 Chinese subs and China's own sub surge. Vietnam did well by its acquisition of 6 KIlo 636.3s for just over $2B in 2009. Including the infrastructure and armament the cost was estimated at being just $3.2B. The revised cost for our 6 smaller Scorpenes is $4.6B,over $700M/sub ,which is likely to only go up further,at least $800M/sub!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 818485.cms?
Defence minister to undock first Scorpene sub today
V Narayan,TNN | Apr 6, 2015,

MUMBAI: The first of the six Scorpene Submarines (Project 75) will undock in presence of the defence minister Manohar Parrikar at the Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) in Mumbai on Monday. The minister will be commencing the floating out of the first project 75 (Scorpene) Submarine on pontoon at MDL, said the Indian Navy official.

An MDL official said the submarine will undock on Monday and after carrying out tests at sea it will dock back. "After undergoing trial test run at sea to check technical glitches, if any, the sub will be commissioned on September 2016," said the official.

A source said the project to build the Scorpenes with technology borrowed from France's DCNS has already had a cost escalation of nearly Rs.5,000 crore. It is expected for the induction of all the six submarines tentatively by 2018. "The revised cost of the submarines, called Project 75, is approximately at Rs 23,562 crore against the originally approved Rs 18,798 crore," said the source.

Currently the Indian Navy operates only 14 conventional diesel-electric submarines. While 10 of them are ageing Russian Kilo class and the rest four German HDW class. The government has planned to get 30 subs before 2022, but the projects have been delayed, with the follow-on Project 75.

The original delivery schedule of the first submarine was December 2012 and remaining submarines were to be delivered with a gap of one year each. Consequent to the approval of the government for revision in cost and delivery schedule, the delivery schedule delayed and revised to 2015 and that of the last (sixth) submarine to be tentatively to be commissioned in September 2018.

PS:The "undocking" of the first Scorpene by the DM today however is a major landmark,insofar as MDL has finally after 3 decades delivered a sub! Kudos to everyone involved. Hopefully from now on we will se at least one conventional sub being launched/commissioned every year,preferably two and at least one N-sub too!

nits · Post by **nits** » 06 Apr 2015 13:24

scorpene Pics from Rediff

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Apr 2015 13:50

Gende ka phool, tiranga, swastick aur nariyal (Marigold, tri-colour, swastick and coconut) SDREs manage find ways to decorate everything with this stuff. Btw what are those white flowers ? Jasmine ? looks like a reel of Gajra.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Apr 2015 14:24

Some more pics from Sitanshu Kar's (@SpokespersonMoD) timeline

ravip · Post by **ravip** » 06 Apr 2015 14:40

what is that white colour cover, will it be removed or is it a dual coloured submarine?

nits · Post by **nits** » 06 Apr 2015 14:42

On first glance I thought otherwise that its white color and Black Covering in parts...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 14:45

the white colour areas will have black tiles glued on.
the black colour is covering the sonars. looks like it has much bigger sonar than the kilos with two large 'earlobe' things on the side.
the kilos have their sonar above the TT , here it is below the TT. the sonar cavity will be filled with water at equal pressure as the outside, hence the composite black material, not metal.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0j1Gt1323Vo/U ... marine.jpg

has flank sonar too, unlike the kilos.
her sonar suite is far superior to the kilos and u209

Sonar suite

The vessel's sonar suite includes a long-range passive cylindrical array, an intercept sonar, active sonar, distributed array, flank array, a high-resolution sonar for mine and obstacle avoidance and a towed array.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 15:01

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 15:02

SUBTICS combat system. the agosta90b also has this or a variant.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 15:04

the agosta90b has a inferior and more minimal sonar suite albeit it shares the same SUBTICS thales combat consoles.

Sensor suite

The submarine is fitted with a Thales Underwater Systems (formerly Thomson Marconi Sonar) TSM 223 sonar suite, which includes bow-mounted sonar and towed sonar arrays, SAGEM periscopes and navigation system and Thales I-band navigation radar.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Apr 2015 15:06

looking at the sheer compactness of these puppies yet so much kit onboard, Tsarkar sir was right, the SSK is more complex gear than a capacious SSN and hence the iphone of naval kit in terms of precision, tfta spit n polish and packing density needed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Apr 2015 18:18

There are many commonalities in eqpt. between N-subs and conventional subs in terms of combat suites,eqpt.,etc. The larger size of an N-sub gives it greater all round performance ,speed,diving depth,extra weaponry,sensors, especially and better space for the crew voyages being upto 3 months u/w.Here is an xcpt/assessment by the US's most experienced analysts,Norman Polmar on the tech dimension between US and Russian subs.Though this is an old piece,it has many interesting points.

http://fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970318n.htm

Statement by
Norman Polmar

Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for this opportunity to share my views of the U.S. Navy submarine program with you.

Perspective

As an introduction, let me reiterate a fact that is well known to this committee: U.S. naval forces--Navy and Marine Corps--will have an increasing role in the post-Cold War era because of our withdrawal of ground and air forces from overseas bases while the number of international crises are increasing.

In this context, U.S. naval forces--which are undergoing major reductions in numbers--must have qualitative advantage over all potential adversaries. This is particularly true in the submarine arena, for our submarines generally go in "harms way" early in a crisis, and in conflicts are often operating alone in the enemy's "back yard."

I continue to be very concerned about the direction that we are taking in attack submarines. This concern is obviously shared by many of you and your colleagues here in the House, as well as by members of the Senate, officials of the Defense Department, by persons in the naval research and analysis field, and by many of the officers in the submarine force with whom I have spoken.

For the vast amount of money that we have invested and continue to invest in submarines, the United States should be the unquestioned world leader in submarine technology. But we are not. Last month, in a public relations booklet, the Director of Naval Intelligence wrote that the Russian submarine force, despite its reduced numbers and manning problems, "...still remains the technological pacing challenge by which the U.S submarine force measures itself...." [Emphasis in original]

Is there another area of naval warfare in which Russia--or any other nation--is the "technological pacing challenge"? Certainly not in naval aircraft, or aircraft carriers, or surface combatants, or mine countermeasures, or amphibious warfare. Indeed, is there a Russian "technological pacing challenge" in tanks today? Or in manned bombers? Or in missile development?

Post-Cold War Submarine Force

Today the U.S. Navy's attack submarine force is undergoing a severe reduction, from 95 SSNs at the end of the Cold War to the 45 to 55 submarines approved by the Bottom-Up Review of 1993. This is a 50 percent reduction. It is possible that this year's Quad-rennial Review (QDR) could lead to a further reduction in attack submarines.

Coupled with this dramatic change in force size, the primary attack submarine mission has shifted from open-ocean and Arctic Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), to a more complex mission regime in what are called littoral or coastal areas. While the Navy is still sorting out specific missions for submarines in the littoral environment it has already become apparent that our torpedoes and sonars are not as effective as in the open ocean. Further, we must still maintain the open-ocean submarine capabilities.

Thus, the challenges to the (smaller) U.S. submarine force are considerable.

At this time our record of technology development is uneven. U.S. nuclear submarine emphasis has long been on the "back of the boat"--the engineering plant. The "front end," the hull design, non-engineering systems, sensors, and weapons have been similar for more than three decades with relatively marginal improvements. We see this in the similarity of the front ends of the PERMIT class (13 units), STURGEON class (37 units), and the LOS ANGELES class (62 units)--virtually no "front end" innovation.

Indeed, the first 39 submarines of the LOS ANGELES class have no minelaying or under-ice capability, and all of the LOS ANGELES class have a reduced depth capability, part of the cost for them to regain a few knots of speed that were lost by having the same power plant in three previous classes.
The SEAWOLF-class attack submarine was developed in an effort to improve the "front end" as well as to put to sea a larger reactor plant. At great cost we increased the submarine's speed, depth, firepower, and stealth over the LOS ANGELES class. But the SEAWOLF was too expensive. As early as January 1985, a study undertaken for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy called attention to the fact that a single SEAWOLF would cost more than twice as much as a LOS ANGELES SSN

Indeed, largely because of its cost, the SEAWOLF became the most controversial submarine program in American history. When the Cold War ended the Bush Administration cancelled the entire 29-ship SEAWOLF program except for the lead submarine. Pressure from the nuclear submarine community, led by Admiral Bruce DeMars, and shipyard influence caused the Congress to fund two more SEAWOLF-class submarines.

With the cutback in the SAEWOLF program, the cost of the three-ship class has risen astronomically. The third SEAWOLF is expected to cost in excess of $ 3 billion. Also, the lead sub-marine, the SSN-21, will be placed in commission some 2½ years behind the original Navy schedule, and at much greater cost than envisioned.

The SEAWOLF is unaffordable in the post-Cold War era.

The Navy's response is the New Attack Submarine (NSSN).

Soviet/Russian Submarine Development

While the U.S. Navy sought to retain superiority in acoustic quieting it sacrificed many submarine attributes: speed, depth, weapons payload, survivability, the advantages of double-hull construction, and certain other features.

The Soviet Union sought to retain these features in their sub-marines. In doing so the Soviets continually surprised us; the following list reflects undersea warfare areas in which Soviet developments were unexpected by most Western naval experts:

Performance
o Depth
- Mike SSN (3,000+ ft)
- Alfa SSN (2,000-2,500 ft)

o Speed
- Papa SSGN (44.7 knots)
- Alfa SSN (42-43 knots)
- Sierra SSN (35+ knots)

Hull-Machinery-Electrical
o Quieting (passive and active)
- Akula (1985)
- Improved Akula (c. 1991)
- Akula II (c. 1995)

o Hull coatings
- anechoic
- self-quieting
- drag reduction

o High-density nuclear plants

o Hydrodynamic design

o Automation (with greatly reduced manning)

Weapons/Sensors
o Strategic missile ranges
o Wake-homing torpedoes
o Large-diameter torpedoes (650-mm)
o Large-payload torpedoes
- approx. 650 pounds for U.S. Mk 48
- 1,000+ pounds for Soviet torpedoes
o Rocket torpedoes (180+ knots)
o Non-acoustic ASW
- satellite/radar
- in situ wake detection
- other

As the Soviet submarine force advanced in these areas, U.S. submarine leaders held to the view that the U.S. submarine force was superior because of our lead in acoustics or quieting. There were, however, ominous signs that the Soviets were making progress in submarine quieting. The Soviet Akula class, which went to sea in the mid-1980s, was far quieter than expected. The Akula's appearance led to a House-sponsored study that concluded that because of Soviet submarine acoustic quieting, "We believe that the [U.S.] Navy must, in effect, 'start over' in its approach to ASW."

Addressing specific Soviet submarine developments--called into focus by the unexpected low noise levels of the Akula--the report continued:

... it is true that the Soviets' submarine R&D [research and development] program is extremely ambitious, [it] seems to over-look no promising technologies, and--in that it dates back many years--is no flash in the pan. As a result of their years of intensive research it appears that the Soviets may well be ahead of us in certain technologies, such as titanium structures and control of the hydrodynamic flow around a submarine.

But far more important is the improvement that the Soviets have made in submarine quieting. The problem is not that Soviet submarines are now quieter than ours; they are not. But after decades of building comparatively noisy submarines, the Soviets have now begun to build submarines that are quiet enough to present for us a major technological challenge with profound national security implications.

The Improved Akula SSN, which went to sea in 1990, soon revealed that the Soviets had surpassed the U.S. Navy in some areas of acoustic quieting--the Improved Akula was quieter than our newest attack submarines, the Improved LOS ANGELES class. Admiral J.M. Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations, told the House:

This is the first time since we put NAUTILUS to sea that [the Russians] have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.

While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world, one wonders if we have "all" the data needed to evaluate the acoustic signature of the Akula II, and the potential noise level of the Russian SEVERODVINSK, now on the building ways. If the past is any guide to the future, it is likely that the SEVERODVINSK will be significantly quieter than the Akula series--and quieter than the SEAWOLF, which was designed several years before the SEVERODVINSK. Discussions that I have had with senior officials of Russia's Rubin and Malachite design bureaus reinforce the view that future Russian submarines will be quieter and have significantly improved performance.

http://fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970318n.htm

PS:Interesting titbit about Pak's midget subs in the '71 war.Was the IN ship allegedly unsuccessfully attacked the Kukhri ,sunk in the war,or was it another ship? Interesting fact for naval historians.

In the late 1960s, Pakistan ordered six SX-404s to a slightly modified design. The Pakistani Navy deployed its six boats against the Indian Navy during the 1971 war. One of them, reportedly fitted with external torpedo tubes fired on an Indian naval frigate, INS Kukri, but the torpedo remained stuck in its external launcher. Of the six, one was lost with all hands as a result of an accident on December 27, 1976. Following removal from service, four were scrapped and one was placed ashore as an exhibit in the Pakistan Maritime Museum in Karachi.

http://covertshores.blogspot.in/

PPS:To give you an idea of the advantages of a larger N-sub,ck into this excellent video-doc of a restored Typhoon sub at sea.
Secret Russian sub.Mission invisible.
http://rt.com/news/241441-strategic-bom ... eployment/