Indian Naval News & Discussion - 12 Oct 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 09 Apr 2015 17:55

has anyone ever caught a pic of the Trenton in vizag. I assume thats where she is home ported.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sattili » 09 Apr 2015 18:58

^^^^^
Yes at this location 17.705423° 83.270925°. Look in the historical imagery (16 Apr 2014)

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 09 Apr 2015 21:33

Guys see a bit down you will find a cage like structure.

Is it what i think it is ????

"Deperming" ????

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 09 Apr 2015 21:38

@ 17.692599, 83.278413

kilo class ????

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 502
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 09 Apr 2015 22:52

Did any one come across video when Kalvari launched in to water ? Please post it if you come across one.

-Ankit

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arshyam » 09 Apr 2015 23:08

It was only floated out, not launched into the water. Undocked, I believe is the correct term to use.

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2015 06:12

I think aubs are not slid down a slope unlike ships. Instead a drydock is filled with water.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 10 Apr 2015 11:19

Ankit Desai wrote:
JTull wrote:There are couple of partial pictures of the incomplete hulls on the side of the Kalavari. Did anyone have any luck with better pictures?


Some moments at the beginning than start watching after 2.15.




-Ankit


What is that long cylindrical vessel seen to the right of INS Kalvari ?

K

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 10 Apr 2015 12:27

tushar_m wrote:@ 17.692599, 83.278413

kilo class ????


Very uinlikely. Kilos are there on another jetty and then on a dry dock around this. Size is very different

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Apr 2015 12:32

3 possibilities,ATV,Akula/Chakra or Kilo.The size of bows will identify the beast.

tushar_m

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby tushar_m » 10 Apr 2015 13:06

Philip wrote:3 possibilities,ATV,Akula/Chakra or Kilo.The size of bows will identify the beast.


Its not INS Arihant because its already above exiting/entering the covered shed in the same picture above.
It doesn't look like akula/chakra because the back of submarine doesn't have distinctive sonar/globe.

for comparison with kilo class we can clearly see the two kilos parked few meters(whatever unit) in the same picture.

K_Rohit
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 16 Feb 2009 19:11

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby K_Rohit » 10 Apr 2015 13:12

tushar_m wrote:
Philip wrote:3 possibilities,ATV,Akula/Chakra or Kilo.The size of bows will identify the beast.


Its not INS Arihant because its already above exiting/entering the covered shed in the same picture above.
It doesn't look like akula/chakra because the back of submarine doesn't have distinctive sonar/globe.

for comparison with kilo class we can clearly see the two kilos parked few meters(whatever unit) in the same picture.


Actually, I take it back. Its a Kilo. Same size when you measure it. optically seemed different

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 502
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 10 Apr 2015 17:58

Kersi D wrote:
Ankit Desai wrote:
Some moments at the beginning than start watching after 2.15.
......

-Ankit


What is that long cylindrical vessel seen to the right of INS Kalvari ?

K



That is another Scorpene in construction. The video was posted to show exactly that.

-Ankit

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3401
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby kit » 11 Apr 2015 00:06

One report was saying hulls of almost all scorpenes ready but the things that go into it aren't nowhere near completion yet

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Apr 2015 12:24

MDL,L&T,seem to have mastered fabricating hulls,but the innards esp. for the Scorpene package has been v.slow in arrival,well know problems.The AIP issue has still to be resolved and if the DRDO,plumping for its own version,arrives late,we could see further delays to the last 2 boats.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arun » 12 Apr 2015 08:54

Do not recollect seeing this December 2014 Parliamentary report linked here, so here goes ................

Excerpt from the Fourth Report on Demands for Grants (2014-15) of the Ministry on Defence on Navy and Air Force (Demand No. 23 & 24) tabled by our Parliaments Standing Committee on Defence on December 22, 2014 dealing with Cost and Time Overrun issues facing our Navy.

Parliamentary report Indicates Cost overruns for P15A, P28 and IAC Prjects. No mention of overrun on Project 75 though.

Further Parliamentary report indicates delays on NOPV, FIC, LCU, WJFAC, Cadet Training Ship and Catamaran Survey Vessel Projects:

Revised Cost and Timeline Cases

1.10 The cases where timeline and cost have been revised are P 15A, P 28, IAC. The revised cost for the three projects is as follows:-

Ser - Asset - Original Cost - Revised Cost
(a) - P 15 A - 3580 Crore - 11662 Crore
(b) - P 28 - 3051.2 Crore - 7852.39 Crore
(c) - IAC - 3261 Crore - 19341 Crore

The details with respect to time and cost overruns for each of the three cases is indicated in succeeding paragraphs.

P15A – M/s MDL – Time overrun after initial CCS was due to Infrastructural constraints at shipyard due to other naval projects progressing simultaneously and supply of Steel from Russia. Cost overrun post initial CCS sanction was due to increase in Cost of Material, Labour and Overheads and identification and assessment of cost of weapons & sensors.

P28 – M/s GRSE – Reasons for time over run after initial CCS approval are due to delay in development of steel by M/s SAIL, complexity in welding of the newly introduced steel, delay in development of indigenized weapons and sensors, finalization of Propulsion System and non-availability of critical binding data. Further, reasons for time over run after revised CCS approval are due to delay in completion of trials for critical equipment by respective OEMs and delay in receipt of other system and completion of its Trials by Russians. Cost overrun after initial CCS sanction was due to increase in prices due to delay in commencement of construction, increase in costs of developmental projects and use of new state of the art equipment/ systems.

IAC – M/s CSL – Time overrun were mainly due to non-availability of Steel; Learning Curve for CSL; delay in Russian approvals for design & equipment supply and delay in critical/unique pre-launch Indigenous Equipment. Cost overrun was mainly due to reasons of cost estimation for CCS sanction in 2002 at a time when ‘form & fit’ was still emerging; limited information on many Aircraft Carrier specific equipment & material due to inadequate domain knowledge; Equipment costs, emerging technological advances and new generation equipments in IAC.

1.11 The details of cases where the acquisition of the assets has been delayed is indicated in succeeding paragraphs.

NOPVs – M/s Goa Shipyard Limited – Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels (NOPVs) were contracted to M/s Goa Shipyard Ltd., Goa on nomination basis at fixed and firm cost. The contract provides a grace period of one month beyond the delivery period. Beyond this Liquidated Damages would be levied. Whilst first NOPV was delivered in time, the second, third and fourth have been delivered beyond the contractual delivery date. The primary reason for the delay has been the failure of M/s KPCL to supply the gearboxes. Fresh order for Gear Boxes had to be placed. Liquidated Damages are being levied as per the contractual stipulations. There has been no cost 14 escalation due to delay as the contract was on fixed and firm price and LD is being levied for delay in delivery.

NOPVs – M/s Pipavav Shipyard – The contract for construction of five Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels was awarded to M/s Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. Ltd. (PDOECL), Gujarat at fixed and firm cost. The contract was signed on 27 May 11. The shipyard had initially signed a contract with Russian designer M/s ROE. The same could not materialize due to protracted delays by the Russian side. The shipyard proposed alternate design partner. The proposal of the shipyard was examined and the alternate design was ratified and accordingly approval of MoD has been accorded. In view of the change in design, delay is anticipated. As per the contract, Liquidated Damages will be levied beyond the contractual delivery dates.

Fast Interceptor Crafts – M/s Solas Marine Lanka, Sri Lanka – The contract for procurement of 80 FICs was signed on 26 Aug 11. The contract stipulated that, first batch of FICs were to be delivered by shipyard in Jul 12 followed by each batch at every three months interval. However, the delivery of first batch was effected by shipyard in Mar 13. Accordingly, the project is behind the contractual delivery schedule. Applicable liquidated damages subject to a maximum of 5% of the cost of FICs is being levied on shipyard. The delay was attributed to engineering/design issues. Subsequently, the issue had been resolved.

LCU Mk-IV – M/s GRSE Kolkata – The Contract for construction and delivery of Landing Craft Utility Mk-IV (LCU MK-IV) ships was with M/s GRSE, Kolkata on 29 Sep 11. As on date, M/s GRSE has indicated a delay of seven (07) months in the delivery of first four vessels. The major reason for the delay is due to the inability of shipyard to provide adequate manpower to the project. Delay in delivery of balance vessels has been gradually reduced. Further, the delay in the project would also lead to levying of ‘Liquidated Damages’ on the shipyard.

WJFACs – M/s GRSE Kolkata – The Contract for construction and delivery of Follow-on Water Jet Fast Attack Crafts (WJ FACs) was signed between MoD and M/s GRSE, Kolkata (DPSU shipyard) on 01 Mar 13. As on date, M/s GRSE has indicated three (03) months and one (01) month delay in the delivery of first and second vessels respectively. The major reason for the delay is due to the inability of shipyard to allocate adequate resources to the project. The delay in the project would also lead to levying of ‘Liquidated Damages’ on the shipyard.

Cadet Training Ships – M/s ABG Shipyard – A Contract for Cadet Training Ships was concluded with M/s ABG Shipyard on 27 Jun 11. In Oct 13, the Shipyard experienced Cash Flow problem and applied for Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) with the Consortium of Banks. The Shipyard has indicated that the First Ship will be delayed. Regular feedback and follow up of the CDR process is being undertaken by the Navy, and M/s ABG was asked to submit firm timelines.

Survey Vessels by M/s Alcock Ashdown Ltd, Bhavnagar – The project is a fixed Price Contract and was signed on 28 Dec 06. One ship was delivered on 10 Sep 12. Construction of balance ships has subsequently been held up due to inability of M/s AAGL to re-validate expired Bank Guarantees and receive stage payments in view of financial constraints. Reviews of the Project have been undertaken at various levels at IHQ and MoD. However, the financial state of Shipyard resulting in inability to submit Bank Guarantees has resulted in an impasse in construction activities. Approval has presently been accorded to form a group to look into all issues of the case and forward recommendations towards ‘way ahead’ on the project.


The Web link is here:

Fourth Report on Demands for Grants (2014-15) of the Ministry on Defence on Navy and Air Force (Demand No. 23 & 24)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Apr 2015 11:40

Tx Arun for that informative report,gives us an insight into reasons for delays,etc.

Here are two reports of interest to the IN>

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /25454669/

1.Japan Unlikely To Join Indian Sub Tender
By Vivek Raghuvanshi and Paul Kallender-Umezu 4:54 p.m. EDT April 11, 2015

NEW DELHI and TOKYO — Japan has shown little interest in competing its Soryu-class submarines in the Indian Navy's $12 billion tender for six conventional air independent propulsion (AIP) subs, an Indian Defence Ministry source said.

Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar asked his counterpart, Gen Nakatani, during their March 30-31 meeting in Tokyo, to offer the Soryu but the Japanese side remained "non committal," the MoD source added.

Indian Navy officials and submarine experts are also divided about whether the Soryu class could serve Indian Navy requirements.

"To make a comparison with German 214 or Scorpene, the Soryu-class is considerably larger than either the Type 214, Scorpene or even the Russian improved Kilo, and can carry a much heavier weapons load," said Probal Ghosh, senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. "They are seemingly quieter and longer-ranged than the other boats on the market. Cost-wise it is comparable to the other subs. But the designed life of Japanese subs is only 20 years, which is much less than what the other subs are designed for."

Some officials also wondered whether the Soryu can fire Indian-made missiles.

"Soryu-class submarines are a recent induction in Japan." said Shyam Kumar Singh, a retired Indian Navy captain. "It is a conventional diesel electric submarine with AIP from Kockums. They are very potent and capable of carrying torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. They seem to be at par with German submarines. The only catch is that the Indian Navy would like to have bigger and indigenous missiles."

According to a senior Japanese defense analyst, officially no talks were conducted on the issue during the meeting between the two defense ministers. While the Japanese side is aware of India's position and interest in Soyru-based technologies, Japan is taking a cautious approach to any additional deal with India because it is focused on finalizing the sale to New Delhi of some 15 to 18 ShinMaywa US-2 amphibious search-and-rescue planes before tackling new business.

"Japan is new to complex arms and technology agreements with third countries, and it has no experience in offsets," the source said. "It has been said that India wants up to a 30 percent offset for the US-2 deal, and Japanese negotiators are unsure how to conclude the agreement."

Alessio Patalano, a Japanese naval expert at King's College, London, said part of the problem is that the Soryu class is more technologically advanced and stealthier than competitive diesel vessels, meaning there might be limited commercial advantage in a deal for submarines that were perhaps beyond what India needs, would be difficult for India to build and difficult for an experienced Japan to work out technology transfers.

"There are three reasons that make Japanese reluctance understandable," Patalano said. "The first is operational. The Soryu's design is maximized to favor longer patrols and operational flexibility [hence the larger size], both features being not particularly relevant to India's requirements. The second concerns the limited commercial advantage of this deal. Indian shipbuilding industry has limited capacity and a track record that is less than stellar. ... The third aspect concerns reputation. Japan is still learning its ropes in defense-related cooperation/sales, and an Indian experience might be problematic. If you're the new kid in town, you don't want your reputation to be tarnished before you have established it."

Meanwhile, overseas defense shipyards including France's DCNS, Germany's HDW, Spain's Navantia and Russia's Rosoboronexport are likely to forge tie-ups with domestic shipyards to compete in the upcoming submarine tender, but none have been settled.

An Indian Navy official said that while the Soryu-class submarines are quieter and can take a heavier load, it is still not certain India would buy the heavier vessels.

After coming to power in May 2014, the Narendra Modi government canceled an earlier proposal to acquire the submarines from the global market under Project 75-I and reserved the acquisition only in the Buy and Make (India) category.

Under the Buy and Make (India) category, the overseas shipyards will have to transfer technology to the domestic shipyard to compete in the tender but the Japanese are known to be reluctant to part with advanced technology, the Navy official said.

"I do not see that [transfer of technology] as a problem since there are indicators that the Japanese would transfer the design to the Australian Navy," Ghosh said. "In case they are not willing to give the design, then they would not be considered for P75."

The acquisition of conventional submarines under Project 75-I is already delayed by seven years, and so are the French Scorpene submarines being license-produced by Mazagon Docks. Purchasing submarines in the Buy and Make (India) category also causes delays because the whole process has begun afresh, the official added.

India's submarine strength has fallen from 21 in 1986 to 14, which includes Russian Kilo-class vessels acquired between 1980 and 2000, four aging HDW-class submarines and one nuclear submarine bought on lease from Russia two years ago.


*A key reason could also be that Japan is more interested in securing the OZ deal for large AIP 12 subs,where it is the front runner and the offer of Soryus which also has the blessings of the USN,which wants the OZ navy and Japanese navy to further integrate themselves into a more potent anti-PLAN force. The IN P-75I order is less attractive,fewer boats with fierce competition and OZ would also not want the IN to operate the same sub type it would possess since the IN also operates N-subs.OZ has a great "J&E" (jealousy and envy) inferiority factor vis-à-vis India and the IN in particular.

2.http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/chinese- ... ian-ocean/
Chinese Nuclear Subs in the Indian Ocean
An extended deployment has sent a powerful message to the Indian Navy.
By P K Ghosh
April 12, 2015

The deployment of a Chinese nuclear submarine – presumably a Type 093 Shang-class – as part of the anti-piracy patrol of two ships and a supply vessel operating off the Gulf of Aden has set alarm bells ringing loudly in the Indian Navy. The implications of such a strategically significant move are simply enormous, as analysts try to decipher the real reason behind deploying such a platform in the region.

Submarines are not appropriate platforms for dealing with pirates or with piracy. The Somali pirates are known to use small craft known as skiffs individually or as part of swarm tactics to attack ships, returning to larger mother ships nearby. This gives them large operating ranges. Such highly manoeuvrable crafts can hardly be chased by relatively slow moving submarines or torpedoed from underwater, making submarines quite superfluous to anti-piracy operations. Apart from this, in a region where the incidence of piracy has declined to negligible levels, such that other navies are scaling back their presence, China is actually increasing its patrol strength.

China has been conducting independent counter-piracy deployments, mainly in the Gulf of Aden area, since 2008 as part of its Military Operations Other than War (MOOTW) and ostensibly for the common good. Since such patrols require coordination, the Chinese have been cooperating closely with the Indian, Japanese and South Korean navies, although they operate independently.

However, the deployment of the nuclear submarine from December 13, 2014 to February 14, 2015 with the PLA(N) flotilla – the 18th convoy from its South Sea Fleet – was unique and raises questions about China’s agenda. The Indian Navy has told the government that the Chinese may have been conducting hydrological studies in India’s western seaboard, as the Chinese task force was also joined by a research vessel capable of bathymetric studies: mapping the depth of the ocean floors. But the Navy also conceded that it did not spot the Chinese boats in Indian territorial waters.

Hence the rationale for the deployment of the submarine was open to interpretation and analysis.

First, it is well known that the Chinese initiative to deploy ships under the benign guise of anti-piracy patrols was a master stroke aimed at operating for extended periods in distant seas, and more importantly in India’s strategic backyard. Simultaneously, China was able to cooperate with adversarial navies such as Japan and India, enabling it to evaluate these navies (and vice versa).

Second, the deployment sent a strategic message, especially to the Indian security establishment, who have endlessly debated the strategic implications of the Chinese naval foray into the IOR. Clearly, the PLA(N) has the capability to project and sustain its blue water reach, operating thousands of miles from its base for an impressive seven months.

Third, Chinese nuclear submarines like the earlier Xia class were constrained in their ability to operate for even short periods beyond nearby waters. The new Shang and Jin classes are far superior technologically, as this deployment has demonstrated. Consequently, China has reaffirmed its prowess in creating high-tech platforms, along with its ability to project power and demonstrate “blue water” capability in distant oceans.

Fourth, frequent operation in the Indian Ocean will enable China to get a feel for the hydrological conditions in the region, facilitating additional underwater deployments.

Finally, while other navies in the region are looking to reduce their presence in anti-piracy patrols because of the financial burden and the sharp fall in the number of piracy attacks in the region, China has not only maintained its strength but increased it at times. The most likely rationale for this is giving its ships, submarines and crew a “sustained feel” for the area, perhaps in anticipation of frequent deployments in the near future. Hence, it is not idle speculation to suggest that both the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea may become frequent hunting grounds for Chinese submarines, which could lie waiting at choke points or off Indian harbours to operate against the Indian Naval fleet in a crisis.

Clearly, India has a new maritime neighbour in China, which has the capacity to operate near Indian shores and in the Indian Ocean. India neglects this potential threat at its own peril.

Dr. P K Ghosh is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. He is the former lead co-chair of the CSCAP international Study Group on Naval Enhancement in Asia Pacific.


*A decade ago when I was screaming hoarse about this eventuality,many analysts ones,,including Western ones laughed at the thought.Sad to say "I told you so". The PLAN have simply used the opportunity of "fighting piracy" to send in their subs and warships on a permanent basis. Evacuating refugees from the Yemen is another excuse. The Chinese are all over Africa and in IOR states,just as we have millions of our citizens in the Gulf,Africa,IOR,etc. This is more than just a wake-up call for the IN and GOI. Control and doimination of the IOR is the essential for the survival of India as an independent sovereign nation.Our entire trade and energy supplies depend upon it. The IN must be given the highest priority in defence modernization on a war footing.

As has just been done with the Rafale emergency purchase,so too should we acquire asap a few subs to boost the IN's sub fleet and capability as within a few years from now,aging Kilos and U-boats will need replacement,as they've already served us 2-3 decades+ and there is a limit to extending their life even with upgrades. The arrival of Scorpenes from late 2016/2017 onwards is not enough given both the PLAN's huge sub fleet and PN's sub ambitions too with 8 PRC built AIP missile subs to be acquired .

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 13 Apr 2015 19:27

arun wrote:(a) - P 15 A - 3580 Crore - 11662 Crore
(b) - P 28 - 3051.2 Crore - 7852.39 Crore
(c) - IAC - 3261 Crore - 19341 Crore


Thanks for the info finally got confirmation on P 15A price tag, overall they are pretty darn cheap. In other hand IAC price tag is increasing quite rapidly could approach 4 billion dollar mark by the time it is inducted.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby arshyam » 13 Apr 2015 19:32

Does the Vikrant price include the cost of SAIL developing warship grade steel in house? If so, then future carriers won't be as expensive, all things like size, tonnage remaining the same.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 13 Apr 2015 19:40

I thought the cost of moving away from russian supplied steel was absorbed by various projects and some of cost of upgrading cochin sy was factored in the begining. But looks current cost overuns are mainly due to equipment.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Apr 2015 22:36

John wrote:
arun wrote:(a) - P 15 A - 3580 Crore - 11662 Crore
(b) - P 28 - 3051.2 Crore - 7852.39 Crore
(c) - IAC - 3261 Crore - 19341 Crore


How much does the revised cost comes to in USD Terms ?

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 13 Apr 2015 23:35

If thats the cost of 3 P-15a and 4 P-28 then they come in at less than 650 mil per P-15a and 330 mil per P-28. But since P-15a and P-28 are both without any SAM's they ought to be cheap.

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VibhavS » 13 Apr 2015 23:38

P15A - 11662 - $1.86B
P28 - 3051 - $.489B
IAC1 - 19341 - $3.0B

Please note all numbers above are done using Current Exchange Rate of R62.4 - $1 as per google chaacha. I just hope I do not have my decimals confused.

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VibhavS » 13 Apr 2015 23:40

Bheeshma wrote:If thats the cost of 3 P-15a and 4 P-28 then they come in at less than 650 mil per P-15a and 330 mil per P-28. But since P-15a and P-28 are both without any SAM's they ought to be cheap.


With the P15A getting Barak 8 do we know how much the launchers will cost? Since the radar and FC is in place already.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 14 Apr 2015 02:17

Bheeshma wrote:If thats the cost of 3 P-15a and 4 P-28 then they come in at less than 650 mil per P-15a and 330 mil per P-28. But since P-15a and P-28 are both without any SAM's they ought to be cheap.


P 15A should include barak 8 this is allocated/projected cost for program not current expense of the project.

As for P 28 they were not intended to have SAM as per its fit so yes its not included in cost, a 16 cell barak 1 system cost around 20 million that doesn't include STGR.
So yes they are pretty expensive for their fit.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Vipul » 14 Apr 2015 07:52

Maritime surveillance goes hi-tech.

At the click of a mouse, the Indian Navy will be able to track the movement of ships and fishing boats plying in the waters all along India’s 7,500-km-long coastline. It has set up a Command Centre in Gurgaon which will receive real-time radar feed and pictures taken by high-definition cameras, satellites and maritime surveillance aircraft. The footage will be exactly the same as captured by 46 coastal radar stations now operating in remote areas of the country.

Called the Information Management Analysis Centre (IMAC), the command post will enable the Indian Navy and other stakeholders in coastal security to take effective action in case a rogue ship or boat is detected.

This R450-crore project, also known as National Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence Centre (NC3I), was launched soon after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, when Pakistani terrorists managed to reach the city undetected due to gaps in coastal surveillance. The Command Centre, which is the nodal centre of the NC3I network, will go a long way in plugging these gaps through round-the-clock surveillance by radars, high-definition electro optic cameras and satellites, according to Admiral Kishan Pandey, assistant chief of naval staff communication, space and network centric operations.

An officer sitting at his console in the Gurgaon centre can access real time information on his computer screen about traffic of ships and boats in his designated zone, be it waters of Chennai or remote islands in Andaman & Nicobar. In the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks, at least 46 coastal radar stations at strategic locations in all the nine littoral states continuously monitor sea lanes. These stations in turn relay information to six core centres located in Gandhinagar (Gujarat), Mumbai, Chennai, Port Blair, Visakhapatnam and Kochi.

With the main centre at Gurgaon becoming functional, which is 80% indigenised, the officer will also get the information or visual data as seen by his counterparts manning the radar stations. All the stations, core centres and main command posts are connected with a high-tech computer network through especially-developed Coastal Surveillance and Decision Support software system designed and managed by the Navy.

The ‘Decision making or Decision support software’ as it is called has been bought from the US-based company Raytheon, but has been customised by the in-house naval IT software experts in developing their own algorithms. “It is hack-proof after being certified by Scientific Analyst Group under the wings of DRDO,” Pandey explained. The software has incorporated data about fishing boats and trawlers engaged in their trade in Indian waters through Automatic Identification System (AIS) chips. However, 30,000-odd small fishing boats are yet to be issued these chips as fishermen are demanding them free of cost. The state governments, through their respective fisheries departments, are likely to complete this process in the coming months.

There are more than 200,000 small and medium-size fishing boats and 60,000 to 70,000 boats venturing out into the sea to catch fish every day. The AIS covers boats weighing more than 300 tonnes or those that are 20 metres long. The Navy is urging the state governments to issue AIS to smaller boats to ensure that all boats out in the sea are identifiable.

Information about all merchant ships, be it Indian or foreign, passing through Indian waters or close by is also part of the software as it is now linked to the World Shipping Register. This will help the officer concerned to track the movement of the ships and take steps if any of them deviates from its path or is found sailing in a suspicious manner.

The Navy and Coast Guard, with the help of state governments, are going to install transponders in all private boats of Indian fishermen to locate their position in the sea. These transponders will be connected through the NC31.

The Navy will install 1,000 transponders in private boats of Gujarat fishermen as a pilot project. The installation of more transponders will depend on the success rate. The 350-km coastal area from Karwar to Bhatkal and Mangalore will be monitored closely due to vulnerabilities.

According to defence minister Manohar Parrikar, who had recently inaugurated the Gurgaon centre, “There is no radar station in these areas and hence in past some years, terror exports would take place from these regions especially in Bhatkal. Apart from that there is no such radar station from Ratnagiri to Goa. Even, Goa was becoming a smuggling centre some 30 years ago. These areas must come under the surveillance to minimise anti-national activities.”

The IMAC is envisaged to function as the nodal centre for collecting inputs from various static sensors and radars that were installed along the coast under the Coastal Surveillance Network (CSN) as well as from satellite imageries. Its tasks include analysing these inputs and disseminating them among concerned agencies to ensure a gapless surveillance of the entire coastline. The centre forms part of the National Command Control and Communication and Intelligence Network (NC3IN) which connects 20 naval and 31 coast guard stations along the coast that have been jointly developed by the Indian Navy, the Indian Coast Guard and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL). The BEL has set up the coastal radars that are running on X and S band.

The IMAC at present has the ability to track marine vessels operating between the Malacca Strait and the Persian Gulf and can trigger off an alarm if any ship’s movement is deemed suspicious.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Apr 2015 11:32

Pl. read the latest US ONI and other intel reports on the PLAN's new subs and sub-launched supersonic missiles which will be carried by almost all its sub types. How an IN P-28 ASW corvette/light frigate is going to counter a PLAN sub which can launch anti-ship at it from distance without a BPDMS beats me. The SAM magazines of the P-15As also appear inadequate,if the B-8s are going to perform anti-missile duty as well as LR-SAM duty. Most new PLAN warships of DDG size carry 64+ SAMs apart from BPDMS systems. Russian warships possess 3 layers of anti-air/missile defence.LR/MR SAMs,combined PDMs/gatlings and IGLA type MANPADS too. Even the PN/PAF have anti-ship missiles like Exocet,Harpoons and Chinese missiles. Underarmed IN warships will be severely at risk in any future spat.


Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3396
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 14 Apr 2015 23:04

Philip wrote:... How an IN P-28 ASW corvette/light frigate is going to counter a PLAN sub which can launch anti-ship at it from distance without a BPDMS beats me. The SAM magazines of the P-15As also appear inadequate,if the B-8s are going to perform anti-missile duty as well as LR-SAM duty. Most new PLAN warships of DDG size carry 64+ SAMs apart from BPDMS systems. Russian warships possess 3 layers of anti-air/missile defence.LR/MR SAMs,combined PDMs/gatlings and IGLA type MANPADS too. Even the PN/PAF have anti-ship missiles like Exocet,Harpoons and Chinese missiles. Underarmed IN warships will be severely at risk in any future spat.


This point has come up multiple times here at BRF. But we are getting needlessly alarmed as amongst the recent crop of ships it is only Kamortas which are underarmed.

Saryus are OPVs and are suitable equipped, compare it with Sukanya which was nominally armed with single bofors cannon. Kolkatas carry 32 SAMs but are bristling with arms otherwise.

Coming back to Project-28. Cost seems to be the reason. Compare it to P-25/25A corvettes which are also not multi purpose ships.

Perhaps IN needs a cheap, general purpose ship such as F-22P. May not be most capable but is advertisable ... sort of like JF-17 of the seas :mrgreen:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3790
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Apr 2015 04:21

Philip wrote:Pl. read the latest US ONI and other intel reports on the PLAN's new subs and sub-launched supersonic missiles which will be carried by almost all its sub types. How an IN P-28 ASW corvette/light frigate is going to counter a PLAN sub which can launch anti-ship at it from distance without a BPDMS beats me. The SAM magazines of the P-15As also appear inadequate,if the B-8s are going to perform anti-missile duty as well as LR-SAM duty. Most new PLAN warships of DDG size carry 64+ SAMs apart from BPDMS systems. Russian warships possess 3 layers of anti-air/missile defence.LR/MR SAMs,combined PDMs/gatlings and IGLA type MANPADS too. Even the PN/PAF have anti-ship missiles like Exocet,Harpoons and Chinese missiles. Underarmed IN warships will be severely at risk in any future spat.


Don't most of the IN's prime time surface assets carry two helos as vs. one in Chinese and Russian DDG/FFGs? I think the IN prefers to use its helos in anti sub warfare and prosecutes the enemy at a distance instead of mainly banking on SAMs, which have limited LOS problems any way. If PLAN sea skimmers are supersonic, those will be very hard to neutralize via SAM alone.

Of course, it is another matter that the IN ships are terribly short on helos as well!

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby ravip » 15 Apr 2015 06:53

Image

First launch of Project 15 Bravo Visakhapatnam Class on April 20 at MDL.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/588153772368592897

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby pragnya » 15 Apr 2015 08:17

vertically launched Astra based SRSAM???

India developing its own short-range surface-to-air missiles for navy

India is working on a short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) which, when developed, can be used by the country's navy which earlier rejected the indigenous Akash missiles.

The new indigenous project is at an initial stage and is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), a source in the know of the project development told dna.

The new missiles with a range of 25-30 kilometres can be used by the Army and the Air Force too, the source said.

The project is independent of the DRDO's and the French firm MBDA's joint missile programme for navy that the government took a decision on recently as reported by dna on March 31.

Unlike Akash missile, the new missiles will be a cannister based and vertically-launched system suitable for naval ships. They can be placed hidden in the ship's dock and escape enemy surveillance radars.

"The fact that they will be vertically-launched next-generation quick-reaction missiles will enable Navy to strike a target in all directions from the ships with much improved manoeuvering," said the source.

The cannister based SRSAM will also absorb the large part of the flume that emanates during a missile launch. This will be to the Navy's advantage that have limited space to operate from the warships.

The new project's cost components and time frame of completion could not be immediately known.

India already has long range cannister based missiles like Brahmos and Agni but navy's requirement is a short range quick-reaction missile.

The medium-range surface-to-air missile Akash was initially made keeping in view Army's requirement but later its Air Force version was developed. The Navy, however, hadn't found it fitting its requirement.

Meanwhile the Indian Navy is also preparing to equip its warships with Israeli Barak-8 air-defence missile system which is to happen by the year end.

Also, the DRDO has recently begun engaging with the French firm MBDA for development of nine SRSAMs which have 40 missiles each. India recently revived the $5 billion SRSAM 'Maitri' project - a joint programme between the DRDO and MBDA whcih had seen no headway since 2007.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 15 Apr 2015 09:23

^Yay, what took them so long?

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Apr 2015 14:12

the P15A already has a very low slung superstructure...vs similar ships in china, usa and uk....now they are making it even smaller!!
I wish they had enlarged the foredeck by moving the RBU launchers to each beam, on a slight protruding sponson if need be ... and put in 64 Barak8
this would also given them non-overlapping 180 fields of fire all the way to the back without needing to turn the ship by 90' to engage targets in the rear.

close defensive systems like ak630, barak1, RBU must be given widest fields of fire for quick reaction...so it made sense to move the RBUs to each beam.

-----livefist---------
The Visakhapatnam-class maintains the same hull and propulsion package as the Project 15A Kolkata-class. Russia's Northern Design Bureau, enlisted as a design consultant has helped reduce the size of the design's superstructure.

Meanwhile, the second P15A destroyer Kochi will be commissioned shortly into the Indian Navy.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3396
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 15 Apr 2015 16:22

Looks like alpha.... Must be a generic image

ravip wrote:Image

First launch of Project 15 Bravo Visakhapatnam Class on April 20 at MDL.

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/588153772368592897

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 15 Apr 2015 17:40

Aditya G wrote:Perhaps IN needs a cheap, general purpose ship such as F-22P. May not be most capable but is advertisable ... sort of like JF-17 of the seas

Joke aside F-22P is quite outdated in terms of design and lightly armed for its size. Best light frigate design IMO is Formidable class which can easily accommodate 2 Helos, 32 cell Barak-8 along with Brahmos for its size while weight only little more than P-28 or F-22P.

Also thanks to various automation it requires relatively small crew size so in long run IN would save a great deal in costs. Overall price tag itself paid by RSN was very realistic (compared to what Saudi paid for La Fayette FFG).

Good to see P-15B has been launched. Looking at allocated price tag of over billion it should be better armed and fitted with better search radar than P-15A.

Singha wrote:I wish they had enlarged the foredeck by moving the RBU launchers to each beam, on a slight protruding sponson if need be ... and put in 64 Barak8
this would also given them non-overlapping 180 fields of fire all the way to the back without needing to turn the ship by 90' to engage targets in the rear.


IMO IN seems to be quite hesitant to get rid of RBU-6000 it is only hard kill option against torpedoes, also it can be used to bombard targets in the shore or against small boats (think USS cole) which are often too fast to knock out with main gun. RBU-6000 itself takes up large chuck of area below deck with its reload mechanism so i don't really see where they can move it.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3396
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 15 Apr 2015 19:01

My minimum expectations from Project 15B:

- Flush deck out front
- 127 mm gun
- Nirbhay launcher
- More SAMs, could be SR-SAM or B-8s

Anything less it would not justify a different project designation

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

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Apr 2015 20:34

TT will usually be released from the back or side after ship has passed. It will home in on engine noise.
Current rbu position is really bad. Better overhanging from sides with direct Los to stern.

How do western warships plan to deal with Chinese TT?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby John » 15 Apr 2015 20:59

^ Mainly via passive countermeasures and using ASW helos to deal with subs at a safe distance.


Highly skeptical we will see SR SAM or Maitri be ready for testing any time before 2020 let alone be inducted for P-15B. IMO Nirbhay are likely to be fitted into existing Brahmos launchers.

Don't want to be downer but lets not expect Seojong like 96 cell Barak-8 armament. Looking at bright side Vishakhapattanam will be launched in less than half the time it took for Kolkata so i am expecting a lot of thing to be remain consistent with P-15A.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests