Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 27 May 2015 21:17

More details about HSL, if one ignores the political nonsense. Honestly, I think Col. Shukla should stick to technical defence matters and not get into political commentary, he appears too partisan ever since the NDA took over.

Anyway, some details I found interesting:

Nurturing shipyards: the case of HSL - Ajai Shukla

Besides all this, there is the fact that the defence ministry – at the navy’s urging – took over HSL from the Ministry of Shipping specifically to use it as a submarine yard.

Another reason for entrusting HSL with Kilo-class refits is that the defence ministry’s logic for taking over HSL from the ministry of shipping in 2010 no longer holds good. Amongst other uses, HSL was to build nuclear submarines, which are currently assembled next door at the Special Boat Centre (SBC), a small Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) facility. While MDL built conventional submarines, HSL’s protected location on the eastern coast and its deep-water harbour made it ideal for building larger nuclear submarines that are needed in growing numbers. The first nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), INS Arihant, will be followed by at least three more SSBNs. A line of nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) is likely, though not yet sanctioned. But a defence ministry committee recently determined that HSL cannot build nuclear submarines, because of nuclear hazard --- its workers live too close to the shipyard.

I don't find this believable - if the Navy had asked the MoD to take over HSL, won't they have at least evaluated it for nuke ship building prior to making such a recommendation? Clearly, they decided against it and went with the SBC next door, so what's the point of a recent committee going over the same question? He should have asked the Navy for their comments on why HSL was chosen, and what role they expected it to play. Would clarify matters.

Its geographical advantages are priceless. Visakhapatnam port is ten metres deep, far better for launching big ships than the four-metre-deep MDL and GSL, or GRSE, which is on a riverfront. Visakhapatnam harbour requires little dredging because no river flows into it, and a narrow harbour mouth prevents the sea from bringing in sand. HSL owns a full kilometre of water frontage in Visakhapatnam, including a massive 560-metre outfitting jetty that would please any shipbuilder. It is the MoD’s largest shipyard with a work area of 117.55 acres and living accommodation of 142 acres, significantly larger than metro-based dockyards like MDL (75.5 acres). HSL’s shipbuilding facilities include an 80,000 DWT (dead weight tonnes) covered dry dock that can take in an aircraft carrier, and three slipways, including two with capacities of 33,000 DWT and one of 15,000 DWT.

This is interesting, so HSL can potentially build large supply ships and maybe even destroyers. Now the plan to give HSL some supply ship orders make sense.

Agree with the rest, except for the refit in Russia part. Without any comments from the Navy, it's unclear why that happened, or maybe there was some quid pro quo.

Given the volume of shipbuilding needed for meeting the navy’s Maritime Capability Perspective Plan (MCPP), the defence ministry has business enough for HSL, as well as every warship-building shipyard. The MCPP envisages the growth of today’s 137-ship navy, with barely 50 capital warships, into a 160-ship navy with 90 capital warships. Even as new warships are built, the existing fleet requires maintenance and refit, necessarily in country.

A quick survey of the load on defence shipyards shows how badly HSL is needed. Cochin Shipyard Ltd is occupied building India’s aircraft carriers. MDL and GRSE, which together cannot meet the requirement of capital warships like destroyers, frigates, corvettes and submarines, can be supplemented by Larsen & Toubro (L&T), which has valuable technical expertise and a new, 900-acre shipyard at Katupalli, Tamil Nadu. There is good infrastructure in other private sector shipyards, like ABG and Pipavav, but neither has ever built capital warships or submarines. Even so, there are adequate navy and Coast Guard orders for patrol vessels, survey ships, floating docks and diving support vessels. These are required not just for Indian maritime agencies but also for export to Indian Ocean countries as a part of naval diplomacy.

HSL, therefore, must be deliberately developed into a capital warship yard, given its location, infrastructure and recent expertise in refitting submarines. The defence ministry decision to send two Kilo-class submarines to Russia must be changed in favour of HSL. It must also be nominated to build the navy’s requirement of five fleet support ships, large vessels that HSL has experience in building. Perhaps most importantly, the defence ministry must alter HSL’s mindset as a sick shipyard, inherited from the Ministry of Shipping. Its accumulated losses and negative net worth must be made good and a stable cash flow ensured to allow HSL to operate like a corporation. The ministry’s fourth shipyard has the potential to come good; it cannot be allowed to fail.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 27 May 2015 21:24

/CT on

Btw, is there a chance, just a chance, that the Sindhukirti refit was deliberately slow to coincide with the Arihant's fabrication? Maybe to explain the sudden presence of Russians around Vizag - I imagine the ones consulting in the ATV project would have to be housed somewhere and word could get around, and the HSL refit was a good cover story. The Ajai Shukla articles about HSL is a plant/face saver for HSL and is by design.

Please don't laugh - but think in terms of spy novels

/CT off

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 21:33

Nikhil T wrote:Karan, you have a point about Russians screwing up indigenous capabilities for many projects.

However, in this case, I feel Ajai's report doesn't cover all the sides of the story.

1. Before Sindhukirti, HSL took 10 years to refit Foxtrot-class Vela and Vagli submarines. The report here throws more light:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Navy ... 20342.html
It took the naval dockyard Vizag and HSL nearly a decade each to refit the INS Vela and the INS Vagli, the last surviving pair of Soviet-supplied Foxtrot class submarines acquired in the mid-1970s, which means the two submarines have already spent a third of their lives in medium refits.

Despite objections from a section of the navy which questioned the yard's competence, the Sindhukirti was transferred to the HSL in 2004. The reason given was to develop refit capability within the country to service future submarines.
2. A reason given for slow refit by HSL in case of Sindhukirti in the same report is less manpower used at HSL.

It took the Russian shipyard between 24 and 28 months to refit each Kilo class submarine while it takes an Indian shipyard nearly a decade to complete the same refit. A Russian shipyard deploys over 200 workers in three shifts to complete the refit in two years while HSL-a yard for building commercial ships and with little experience in refitting submarines-deploys just 50 workers.
It's not clear is HSL had one or more shifts, but even if we assume three shifts - the available manpower is 1/4th of a Russian shipyard. Add to that the additional equipment installed (A MCA inertial navigation suite, a Palady nerve system, and a Pirit ship control console, USHUS sonar, comm suite etc) versus the Russian refit and that would just be additional work.

3. Ajai mentions that 13x work in hull replaying was done and then insinuates that it was unnecessary. Well, why doesn't he have a Navy official confirm the same? Even an anonymous quote would've helped, but here we just have HSL's opinion. Where was the Naval on-site team? And why doesn't HSL have the bare minimum capability to test each hull plate and interpret the results itself? After all HSL has done a decade Long medium refit for INS Vagli and two of Egyptian Navy's subs.

AR Shyam, this is the kind of response that is laudable and addresses key points.

Not Shukla is speaking crap because "HSL has 2 midget subs and some OPVs and its a DPSU" or "Its India versus mother Russia and Russia does no wrong" etc sort of stuff that we routinely hear.

Kudos for a reasoned reply. However, here are counter points.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Navy ... 20342.html
It took the naval dockyard Vizag and HSL nearly a decade each to refit the INS Vela and the INS Vagli, the last surviving pair of Soviet-supplied Foxtrot class submarines acquired in the mid-1970s, which means the two submarines have already spent a third of their lives in medium refits.

Despite objections from a section of the navy which questioned the yard's competence, the Sindhukirti was transferred to the HSL in 2004. The reason given was to develop refit capability within the country to service future submarines.

Again, we don't know the level of Russian support or intransigence with these refits. It could have been well the latter. Its only now we are getting this information publicly. In the past, we just blamed Indian orgs and were done with it due to paucity of data.

It took the Russian shipyard between 24 and 28 months to refit each Kilo class submarine while it takes an Indian shipyard nearly a decade to complete the same refit. A Russian shipyard deploys over 200 workers in three shifts to complete the refit in two years while HSL-a yard for building commercial ships and with little experience in refitting submarines-deploys just 50 workers.

It's not clear is HSL had one or more shifts, but even if we assume three shifts - the available manpower is 1/4th of a Russian shipyard. Add to that the additional equipment installed (A MCA inertial navigation suite, a Palady nerve system, and a Pirit ship control console, USHUS sonar, comm suite etc) versus the Russian refit and that would just be additional work.[/quote]

This is a very valid criticism and one which requires more digging to confirm.

3. Ajai mentions that 13x work in hull replaying was done and then insinuates that it was unnecessary. Well, why doesn't he have a Navy official confirm the same? Even an anonymous quote would've helped, but here we just have HSL's opinion. Where was the Naval on-site team? And why doesn't HSL have the bare minimum capability to test each hull plate and interpret the results itself? After all HSL has done a decade Long medium refit for INS Vagli and two of Egyptian Navy's subs.

This is not really a valid critique IMHO, because one does what the OEM reccomends. Its de jure. If the OEM states a certain amount of work has to be done, the Indian yard will be on the defensive because if anything goes wrong, it will be held culpable. So everyone usually errs on the side of what the consultant says.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 21:42

arshyam wrote:More details about HSL, if one ignores the political nonsense. Honestly, I think Col. Shukla should stick to technical defence matters and not get into political commentary, he appears too partisan ever since the NDA took over.

I disagree because Shukla plays the role of a person who doesn't parrot what the establishment says. Such people do bring out useful data and the role he has played in the Arjun/LCA and other programs has been laudable. It balances out his partisan behaviour when it comes to the BJP/NDA to an extent. The same way, the Hindus S&T reportage on defence/ISRO is commendable. The rest, worth nothing but trash.

The crookedness of the T-90 deal would never have been known if not for Shukla keeping the pressure on going against the tide of his fellow media presstitutes.

In your own response below, you find most of the details he is presenting to be of interest, bar a few quibbles.

If we had more options than the likes of Aroor, Pubby etc, I wouldn't care about Shukla.

Anyway, some details I found interesting:

Nurturing shipyards: the case of HSL - Ajai Shukla
Besides all this, there is the fact that the defence ministry – at the navy’s urging – took over HSL from the Ministry of Shipping specifically to use it as a submarine yard.

Another reason for entrusting HSL with Kilo-class refits is that the defence ministry’s logic for taking over HSL from the ministry of shipping in 2010 no longer holds good. Amongst other uses, HSL was to build nuclear submarines, which are currently assembled next door at the Special Boat Centre (SBC), a small Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) facility. While MDL built conventional submarines, HSL’s protected location on the eastern coast and its deep-water harbour made it ideal for building larger nuclear submarines that are needed in growing numbers. The first nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), INS Arihant, will be followed by at least three more SSBNs. A line of nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) is likely, though not yet sanctioned. But a defence ministry committee recently determined that HSL cannot build nuclear submarines, because of nuclear hazard --- its workers live too close to the shipyard.
I don't find this believable - if the Navy had asked the MoD to take over HSL, won't they have at least evaluated it for nuke ship building prior to making such a recommendation? Clearly, they decided against it and went with the SBC next door, so what's the point of a recent committee going over the same question? He should have asked the Navy for their comments on why HSL was chosen, and what role they expected it to play. Would clarify matters.

I don't think this is unbelievable at all. In India's convoluted decision making process all sorts of issues come up and are resolved and then later mixed up. For instance, Keltech IIRC went to Brahmos under Antony's tenure because it was a sick unit. All sorts of ipso facto justifications can be invented later about why and wherefore, but a desire to have HSL make subs and subsequently rescinded is quite possible.

Agree with the rest, except for the refit in Russia part. Without any comments from the Navy, it's unclear why that happened, or maybe there was some quid pro quo.

The Navy is not in the habit of commenting on its plans let alone items like the ATV. In the MOD AR, their section is the most sparse!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 27 May 2015 22:18

Six months old news...but still relevant.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Koc ... 418073.ece

The hullabaloo over the Centre granting in-principle approval for construction of a whole new drydock at the public sector Cochin Shipyard (CSL) at an estimated cost of Rs 1,200 crore notwithstanding, the yard is left with just one commercial order at the moment.

With the hull fabrication work of the indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant nearing completion by the year-end, the hull shop of CSL will be without work in a few months.

The hull shop, having a capacity to fabricate over 1,500 tonnes every month, has been under-utilised since July last year for want of orders barring the fast patrol vessels (FPVs) for the Coast Guard which need just about 100 tonnes of fabrication apiece and a platform supply vessel for Norwegian owners.

While outfitting and shafting have gathered momentum on Vikrant, the carrier is gearing up for its launch from the building bay by the end of the year, indicate sources.

“The carrier only has about 1,200 tonnes of steel left to go on the structure. Right now, it has a tonnage of about 24,000.”

The yard was pinning it hopes on bagging meaty defence orders like at least one of the four Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), each weighing 20,000 tonnes, that the Indian Navy intends to procure. However, it was disallowed to take part in the tendering process citing the ongoing Vikrant construction despite being the only Indian yard with a proven capability and capacity to execute a project of that scale.

The proposed drydock will have an overall length of 300 metres, with the first 135 metres having a width of 100 metres and the remaining 165 metres having a tapered width of 65 metres.

John · Post by **John** » 27 May 2015 22:40

Karan M wrote:As regards DPSUs engaging in blame game whatever, there is ample evidence now to suggest that some Russian firms are as crooked as can be and deliberately subvert Indian national security aims to fulfill their own objectives. I don't expect anything rational from the likes of Phillip. He'll support Russia over India anyday, but the reality speaks for itself.

Off topic if other deals have gone smoothly we can all blame the Russians but same thing can also be said for France->Scorpene or Israel->Barak 8, the responsibility always falls on buyer to make sure the procurement is on time and product is of good quality. When you have broken process of course things are going to fall apart.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2015 22:49

John wrote:
Karan M wrote:As regards DPSUs engaging in blame game whatever, there is ample evidence now to suggest that some Russian firms are as crooked as can be and deliberately subvert Indian national security aims to fulfill their own objectives. I don't expect anything rational from the likes of Phillip. He'll support Russia over India anyday, but the reality speaks for itself.
Off topic if other deals have gone smoothly we can all blame the Russians but same thing can also be said for France->Scorpene or Israel->Barak 8, the responsibility always falls on buyer to make sure the procurement is on time and product is of good quality. When you have broken process of course things are going to fall apart.

This sort of navel gazing ends up justifying India being a fall guy for every crooked dealer out there. Just because you have some broken processes, it doesn't mean that the other guy is justified in doing what they did either.
The usual refrain whenever something goes wrong is its all India's fault. There is a good reason many companies now are expected to abide by an integrity pact, there is no way in heck our processes can be 100% correct for all the situations we find ourselves in and the incredibly complex deals that result. A lot of these deals end up being negotiated with a trust factor that the other guy won't be too greedy or too crooked.
But they are. That is what is being pointed out.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 02:34

indranilroy wrote:
Karan M wrote:Its better than expected given how pathetic the MiG-29k situation is. Another example of how MiG has delivered a turkey to India while the resident Russian-PR-bandwagon-run down Indian orgs character wants India to buy more MiGs. Thankfully Sukhoi while lackadaisical about spares is improving in that respect and is not as crooked.
Karan,

I don't agree with the Mig-29Ks being turkeys. The inside story is that the IAF is a little jealous of the Mig-29Ks. Besides, we should not come to conclusions in the first year of operation. There would have been hardly any flights of the deck in the initial months. Our pilots are getting trained, and only a few of them are cleared for deck landing. The same goes for the maintenance crew. I am sure STBF is buzzing with activity. We should revisit these numbers in the 3rd to 4th year, where training is not the bottleneck but spare parts are.

The good news is the vessel seems to be fine. I was really worried about it.

You can disagree Indranil, but the reality is unfortunately very different.

The MiG-29Ks are big turkeys. They don't work. That's the basic issue. The IN was sold a bunch of malarkey, and they took it, because they wanted carrier capability and the MiG-29K and Gorshkov were an integrated package. The details were discussed earlier & there is public source evidence which also details the disastrous shape the fleet is in.

These are not Indian issues with our maintenance or pilots. These are MiG issues. The freaking things don't work.

BTW, the IAF is not at all jealous of the MiG-29K. Whosoever told you that "inside story" was badly mistaken, because the IAF MiG-29 Upgrade is actually superior to the IN MiG-29K in several respects, but most importantly the radar, which is to be a further upgraded variant of the one on the MiG-29K (less said about the latter the better though).

And guess what? The IAF MiG-29 Upgrade is also struggling. Why? Because MiG/vendors are doing its usual crap.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 483312.cms

NAGPUR: The Indian Air Force (IAF) is struggling to get a vital component from the Russian original equipment maker (OEM) of MiG-29 fighter aircraft, without which the ongoing upgrade of the plane may not be complete.

The components have been supplied from the Russian OEM, while some of the smaller spares have been developed by base repair depots (BRD) of the IAF. The BRDs come under IAF's maintenance command headquartered at Nagpur. However, when it comes to finally flying the aircraft, the plane will also be needing the navigation systems. "There have been long-drawn negotiations with RAC-MiG the company that makes the aircraft but there has been no result so far," said a senior IAF official closely related to the project.

Even as the spares have been indigenized at the BRDs, the components that are single replaceable units have been sourced from Russia. The older navigation system cannot work now, said the IAF source. It has been typical of the Russian OEMs to deny or delay the supply of some or the other vital component that holds up the entire upgrade project. The matter is now being taken up with utmost priority at government level. This will be on the agenda during Russian President Vladmir Putin's visit to India. Probably, the Russian government may not be aware of stance taken by the OEM. Taking up the matter directly at highest level may help, the source said.

This is the standard delay, frustrate, get IAF/IA to concede tactic that the Russian orgs (UAZ for T-90 f.e.) have used successfully in the past. Now, the IAF MiG-29 Upgrade has been delayed substantially.

The first Indian upgrade only flew this year. And the issue above - we dont have confirmation whether it was resolved either.

BTW, the same issue has been occurring for the engines as well.

So, now you can see why the IAF has been so desparate to keep its Mirages and why the Rafale deal made sense.

Now

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 02:40

LOL BTW note how they spin rectification work. For something like the LCA we would have seen a frenzy as with the radome issue. As always, these import guys get a free pass. Sell us stuff which doesnt work and then spin it as something great.

BTW, much the same with the Kopyo on the Bison. It took a Bangalore based firm to fix that radar and raise its MTBF.

http://airheadsfly.com/2015/05/26/radar ... e-capable/

Russian company Fazotron-NIIR is improving the on board radar of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29K shipborne fighter jets of the Russian Navy and the new serial production MiG-35 aircraft, or Fulcrum respectively Fulcrum-F if we go by the NATO-reporting names for these types.

The modernization of the Zhuk-M radar focuses on improving software. “It will add new means to how the radar works with land and sea targets”, a statement of the state-owned Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) reads. The Indian Navy’s MiG-29K/KUBs are also to profit from the improvements, with their radars being designated Zhuk-ME – with the E for Export.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 May 2015 02:51

Karan M wrote:So, now you can see why the IAF has been so desparate to keep its Mirages and why the Rafale deal made sense.

As the saying goes - you get what you pay for. I am not sure if anyone has done an exhaustive study (is it even possible?) on how inexpensive the MiG-29 was for the IAF to procure and how much money has been spent over the years to keep her in serviceable, flying condition. Do the same for the Mirage 2000 and I would not be surprised to see the latter actually being more cost effective...since cost is what is giving BRFites asthma attacks here.

The Baaz upgrade saga is depressing to read.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 02:57

PS: The above is just the radar. The engine issue for the MiG-29K remains.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... ref=tpnews

There are other problems as well. The MiG-29K has been suboptimal for the Navy. One can only hope that the IAF Upgrade proceeds quickly as MiG has been bragging about it 24/7 but question is whether their claims are in anyway real given what we know about systems still not being delivered. Only after we see more upgrades get into flight trials will we know the issue has been addressed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 03:01

Rakesh wrote:
Karan M wrote:So, now you can see why the IAF has been so desparate to keep its Mirages and why the Rafale deal made sense.
As the saying goes - you get what you pay for. I am not sure if anyone has done an exhaustive study (is it even possible?) on how inexpensive the MiG-29 was for the IAF to procure and how much money has been spent over the years to keep her in serviceable, flying condition. Do the same for the Mirage 2000 and I would not be surprised to see the latter actually being more cost effective...since cost is what is giving BRFites asthma attacks here.

The Baaz upgrade saga is depressing to read.

Rakesh, IAF was so frustrated with MiGs inability to provide quality spares, even while arrogantly attacking Indian pilots for "crashing their planes", that they started making their own! The BRDs and HAL now have a mini-empire making MiG- 21, 29, 27 spares. And we never got TOT for MiG-29. But even after ruining their relationship with the IAF, the MiG guys clearly haven't learned their lesson.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 May 2015 03:31

MP is right in de-emphasizing the MSC. The real PRC threat comes from the sea:

"BEIJING — China intends to project naval power in the open ocean in coming years, and not just defend the country’s coastal waters, according to a strategy paper released on Tuesday."

"The traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned, and great importance has to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights and interests,” the strategy paper said. “It is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security and development interests.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world ... power.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 28 May 2015 07:09

Will India Purchase German Stealth Submarines?

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 May 2015 07:15

Cosmo_R wrote:MP is right in de-emphasizing the MSC. The real PRC threat comes from the sea:

"BEIJING — China intends to project naval power in the open ocean in coming years, and not just defend the country’s coastal waters, according to a strategy paper released on Tuesday."

"The traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned, and great importance has to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights and interests,” the strategy paper said. “It is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security and development interests.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world ... power.html

That goes both ways. PRC also realizes that its main threat comes from the sea. It is far more reliant on the Indian Ocean than India is to China Sea region. As shown during the Kargil conflict, the IN will be involved in setting up blockades in the IOR. Pakistan nearly ran out of oil and gas due to IN's blockade. Same will go for the Chinese if they attack Ladakh or North-East. As long as the IN can hold its own against the Chinese in the IOR, it is highly unlikely they would conduct any large scale attack on the border areas.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2015 07:27

for the Vikrant are more Mig29K on order?

I say pull the plug now and go with the Rafale which should have no issues with the ski jump. even the USN JSF sounds like a bargain considering it is future proof and will have a massive logistical 24x7 infra behind it. just upfront cost no way compensates for a 25 yr pain cycle.

may we could order 18 additional rafale for the vikrant (16 single seater, 2 trainers) and make up rest with naval Tejas.
the vikrant will have a air wing of 40 including helicopters so I think fighter wing will be around 30 max and more usually 20. though the rafale-M might be a little different from the land based one, i figure 95% its common , with the same engines and radar - the two biggest costly and complex items with long lifecycle.

would be good to club this with the 36 IAF rafales and save time and paperwork.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2015 07:50

I think the 29 has been penciled in for the Vikrant.

Besides the IN had nyeted naval Rafale long back.

IN had also asked for F-35B info. But, I very much doubt it was for the Vikrant.

Seriously India needs a couple, if not more, design houses for military air crafts. The LCA effort is OK, but moving forward it has got to get real serious.

And, did I mention that IN should get a 100K platform?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2015 08:43

the rafale should be able to fit within the same footprint as Mig29K. it does not even have folding wings due to small size.

its best to let go of a bad product and start fresh than attempt to glue on workarounds in a loop...it never ends...and customers keep finding defects. sure we make mistakes , but only fools would make the same mistake over and over.

can the Mig29K be made to work properly, sure in 10 years, umpteen hours and lots of our money it will reach where the rafale is now in reliability and maturity. same story that was repeated in 80s and 90s with the Mirage2000 vs Mig29 which we got really "cheap"

and hence did not license build the original 80 or so Mirage2000s we should have.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 28 May 2015 11:38

Modi and Parrikar want to avoid another MMRCA.

India sounds out Germany on G2G deal on subs

New Delhi, May 27: India has sounded out Germany for a direct government-to-government deal to buy six submarines, bypassing a competitive bidding process in what could be New Delhi's costliest military acquisitions programme.

The Indian Navy is now in the middle of finalising the specifications for and choosing a shipyard for its P75i programme to acquire six conventional submarines. The submarines must be capable of firing missiles to attack targets on land and must have air independent propulsion (AIP) that gives them more endurance to stay underwater.

The total cost of the project could top $11 billion (approximately Rs 66,000 crore).

The enquiry to the Germans was made at delegation-level talks last evening, a source in the defence ministry said today. The German defence minister, Ursula Von Der Leyen, is currently visiting India.

The Indian Navy currently operates a fleet of 13 conventional diesel-electric submarines after its INS Sindhurakshak sank in Mumbai in August 2013. Four of the submarines are of German-origin.

"We asked them what they would offer if we went for the submarines in a direct government-to-government deal," said the official.

German conglomerate, Thyssenkrupp, the original builders of the U-Boat of Hitler's navy in World War II, currently owns HDW from which the Indian Navy sourced its Type 209 Shishumar-class submarines (INS Shishumar, Shankush, Shalki and Shankul) between 1986 and 1994 before the deal was hit by allegations of bribery and suspended.

Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is now contracted to upgrade the four submarines. The upgradation involves equipping them with capability to fire Harpoon missiles.

The Project 75i programme is designed to assist the navy in beefing up its undersurface power after a three-year submarine-building project drafted in the 1990s went askew. The navy wanted 24 submarines by 2024; it now effectively has 13 with two or three constantly under refit.

Last year, the government decided to select an Indian shipyard for P75i for which a committee headed by the navy's chief of design, vice-admiral Ashok Subhedar, has been tasked.

A defence official said the Modi government was closer to a policy in which all purchases of "strategic equipment" would be made through government-to-government deals. He cited the example of the decision to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

An official statement from the ministry said the talks between Manohar Parrikar and the visiting German minister focused on "partnering of Germany in the Make-in-India initiative in the defence sector and supply of state-of-the-art equipmentechnology".

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Germany last month. German chancellor Angela Merkel is slated to visit India later in the year. The German defence minister will be visiting the Western Naval Command in Mumbai tomorrow.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 May 2015 11:57

G-2-G is the way to go forward on all large defense acquisitions. Floating tenders should be for tenders that do not exceed a certain amount and reserved for things like replacement parts, support extension and additional ammunition. The system is too corrupt and bureaucratic heavy for a competitive bidding process to work on big strategic purchases. Plus, all major deals should have x-years lifecycle support build into it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 May 2015 12:36

What I espoused more than 2/3 years ago! To acquire more German U-boats apart from our Scorpenes to augment/replace our U-209/1500 Sishumar class. We have a long experience operating German U-boats,the U-212/214 series are follow on to the U-209s and would be easy to induct.The German U-boats come with their fuel-cell tech for AIP unlike the Scorpenes with their MESMA.A new MESMA system is to replace the orignal AIP system. SoKo is manufacturing them at speed and apart from the Russian Kilos are the most popular subs worldwide. Russian N-sub tech is being provided to us for the SSBNs (ATVs) and one would expect with the planned SSN/SSGNs as well,and at least one more Akula-2 SSGN appears to be in the pipeline.

The only problem with the German U-boats is that they cannot accommodate BMos or Klub as it stands,a major handicap.Subsonic Harpoons and Exocets will be inferior to BMos,etc. The GOI should examine G-to-G deals for the German U-boats as well as Rubin for Amurs,etc. The Q still remains unanswered,what the conventional sub inventory of the IN should be.At least 18.If we obtain new U-boats,we would then be operating 3 lines of conventional/AIP subs,Russian (Kilos),French (Scorpenes) and German (U-boats 214s?).The best fron both east and west. I think the IN is also not sure which suit us better,the Scorpenes or German U-214s .If U-boats are bought,they could be made once again at MDL after the Scorpenes have all been launched.That appears to be the strategy,so that MDL is not kept idle,while the pvt. yards and HSL can deliver on the N-subs.

Retiring Kilos could be replaced by whatever the IN feels would suit us best.18 conventional/AIP boats (24 even better) plus a mix of around 12 SSBNs/SSGNs would give us a formidable sub fleet to meet the Sino-Pak challenge, remembering that Pak will possess at least 12 conventional AIP subs ,requiring us to have at least 12-18 top counter them,in addition to what is needed to deter the PLAN's massive sub fleet.

If not posted earlier:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 835181.ece
Parrikar Presses for Quicker Delivery of Naval Warships
By Express News Service
Published: 27th May 2015

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 May 2015 12:57

The subs may be the Type-218 which SPore has ordered or the larger Type 216.The latter is supposed to have a double hull,longer range,ideal for the Oz,IN requirements. Given that we tweaked the existing U-209 design into a specialized larger version for our 4 Sishumar class,if German subs are bought they will most probably be tweaked again for our special needs.

Wik

The Type 216 is a submarine design concept announced by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft based on the Type 212/214. It is a larger design targeted to meet the needs of the Australian Collins-class submarine replacement project, also known as Sea 1000, and the needs of other countries possibly including India and Canada.[3] The design is double hulled with two decks, includes a fuel cell, Permasyn motor, and lithium-ion batteries.[2]

Here is what was offered to Oz.

http://defense-studies.blogspot.in/2014 ... in-sa.html

A German submarine builder says it can build 12 Type 216 subs in Australia on time and for $20bn or less. (image : HDW)

GERMAN submarine builder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems says it can build 12 subs in Australia on time and for $20 billion or less.

THE company insists its long experience as a designer and commercial submarine builder, with 161 boats constructed for 22 countries since 1960, make it a low risk for Australia - far lower than Japan whose Soryu-class submarines have never been exported.

"It is our core business to sell a submarine which our customer wants, build it in their country and transfer technology and know-how," a source close to the TKMS bid said on Wednesday.

The government is considering what submarine will replace the navy's six Collins boats that reach retirement age from 2026.

Labor's 2009 and 2013 Defence white papers propose 12 advanced new subs assembled in South Australia where the Collins boats were built.

The coalition has hedged on committing to an Australian build with a final decision tipped for the new Defence White Paper next year.

Two years ago, there were no foreign contenders able to meet Australia's requirements.

But now there are several, from France, Germany, Sweden and Japan, whose Soryu-class boats are regarded as closest to Australia's specifications.

Some media reports suggest Soryu is a done deal, although it would still require substantial modification.

TKMS is proposing its Type-216, a 4000-tonne scaled up version of its widely used 1860-tonne Type-214. That gives it a range of 13,000 nautical miles and endurance of 80 days.

The Type-216 doesn't actually exist yet, although it's 80 per cent in the water. The company says it could produce the first boat in time for decommissioning of HMAS Farncomb in 12 years.

"That means getting a contract in the next year or two, in 2016 or thereabouts, but we can meet that schedule," the source said.

The $20 billion price tag is regarded as the ceiling and final costs could be less.

TKMS could build in either Germany or Australia. The company, which briefly owned Collins parent Kockums, is familiar with Australian facilities and shipbuilder ASC.

"Our position is simply we can build in Australia because we have a proven track record in places such as Greece and Turkey and Korea," the source said.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 May 2015 13:49

It is a good development. But we need to clear as to how this would translate into make in India

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 28 May 2015 13:50

Nikhil T wrote:Modi and Parrikar want to avoid another MMRCA.

India sounds out Germany on G2G deal on subs

"We asked them what they would offer if we went for the submarines in a direct government-to-government deal," said the official.

An official statement from the ministry said the talks between Manohar Parrikar and the visiting German minister focused on "partnering of Germany in the Make-in-India initiative in the defence sector and supply of state-of-the-art equipmentechnology".

best part of the current govt. negotiation style highlighted above. Straight to the point and not the round and round negotiation. Good going

nits · Post by **nits** » 28 May 2015 14:05

Welcome the move; but i head \ read somewhere that a decesion has been taken that going ahead all Naval ships \ submarines will only be build by Indian companies only. I may be wrong or is this just applicable for Ships ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 May 2015 14:33

For the record,the MIG-29K "engine issue" was traced to the poor state of the Dab runway where debris ingestion was the cause of engine problems. I posted earlier reports of how the runway repairs were controversial,having had to be done again each year,meaning poor quality by the contractors. The large number of flights into Goa,including charters (from Russia and elsewhere!

) in this tropical monsoon state,has probably had its effect on the runway.

Secondly,if the MIG_29s are so awful,why on earth then are the NATO member Poles upgrading 16 of their early batch MIG-29s for the paltry sum of less than $3M/aircraft?

The IN have now been operating the MIG-29K for more than 5 years. If there were serious problems experienced,we would have heard of them a long time ago. In fact we set up a second base for the 29Ks at Vizag,INS Dega.

This is an interesting report on the sea trials of the 29K aboard the Vik_ Some good technical info.
MIG 29 and INS Vikramaditya, a deadly combination , On Vikramaditya’s sea trials .
http://defencelover.in/2013/09/19/mig-2 ... ea-trials/

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 28 May 2015 15:30

.

reports said that INS Vikrant will be launched May 28, So far no news from the Press/MoD about the Launch

any info

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2015 16:16

the U216 is shown as having two large arihant style inline UVLS tubes with subcaliber missiles possible.

so K15/Shaurya/Nirbhay/Brahmos might be possible - perhaps 4-6 in each tube.

the TT room we can expect around 25 weapons a mix of ASM(exocet) and HWT. I do not think nirbhay and brahmas will be developed with air cartridge for TT launch, its lot simpler to just use vertical tubes and not have to move them around on loading racks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2015 16:18

a slight humpback section behind the sail should be ok like Arihant.

hope the japanese also play ball in their own best interests and offer a Soryu-IN quickly with similar VL tubes.

DCN seems MIA in not having atleast a concept 4000t SSK to propose. a upscaled scorpene would be the easiest glide path for MDL.

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 May 2015 16:46

Without competitive bidding, how do you establish the fair price ? With the Rafale you have some ballpark based on what they submitted and also the ofeals with Egypt etc. The FMS deals with the Khan are again based on what their Govt is paying. How would you price an U-216 (which is just a concept).

I like the idea of a G2G deal, but I'm not sure it is a fair price discovery method.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 May 2015 17:41

^^^

G-2-G is more than just buying a product. They come with other strategic investments, like nuclear power plants and fuel, and diplomatic gains, such as permanent seat at the UNSC. It's hard to put price tag on that.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 May 2015 17:43

Philip wrote:For the record,the MIG-29K "engine issue" was traced to the poor state of the Dab runway where debris ingestion was the cause of engine problems.

Here I'd have thought the MiG-29 with its anti-FOD intake doors would be, if not impervious, at least exceptionally resistant to engine failure caused by debris. Hype meets reality?

In either case, if as you say, the engine failures were our own damn fault for not keeping our runways clean, it still doesn't explain why the Navy is so worried about an engine failure at sea, to the point where the carrier has been put on a 200nm tether.

Perhaps the Vikramaditya's flight deck is also dirty?

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 May 2015 17:51

srai wrote:^^^

G-2-G is more than just buying a product. They come with other strategic investments, like nuclear power plants and fuel, and diplomatic gains, such as permanent seat at the UNSC. It's hard to put price tag on that.

Let me make it more concrete then. If Germany demands $10b for U-216 made in Pipavav and Russia quotes $8b for Amur made in MDL and France asks for $10b for another 6 Scorpene subs (with DRDO AIP) in MDL and Japan demands $12b for Soryu made at L&T, which one would you accept ?

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 28 May 2015 18:07

Singha wrote:the rafale should be able to fit within the same footprint as Mig29K. it does not even have folding wings due to small size.

its best to let go of a bad product and start fresh than attempt to glue on workarounds in a loop...it never ends...and customers keep finding defects. sure we make mistakes , but only fools would make the same mistake over and over.

can the Mig29K be made to work properly, sure in 10 years, umpteen hours and lots of our money it will reach where the rafale is now in reliability and maturity. same story that was repeated in 80s and 90s with the Mirage2000 vs Mig29 which we got really "cheap" and hence did not license build the original 80 or so Mirage2000s we should have.

+1. With Vishal very likely to be a CATOBAR carrier, Rafale will be a good choice now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 May 2015 18:20

Karthik S wrote:+1. With Vishal very likely to be a CATOBAR carrier, Rafale will be a good choice now.

The Rafale will be out of production by the time the Vishal goes out to sea (which will be no earlier than 2025). As a 4.5 gen aircraft with a 5 gen price tag, its a bad option even for the air force today, and unlike the IAF, the IN wouldn't have a 5th gen fighter to fall back on if the MoD sticks it with the Rafale.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2015 19:15

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:For the record,the MIG-29K "engine issue" was traced to the poor state of the Dab runway where debris ingestion was the cause of engine problems.
Here I'd have thought the MiG-29 with its anti-FOD intake doors would be, if not impervious, at least exceptionally resistant to engine failure caused by debris. Hype meets reality?

In either case, if as you say, the engine failures were our own damn fault for not keeping our runways clean, it still doesn't explain why the Navy is so worried about an engine failure at sea, to the point where the carrier has been put on a 200nm tether.

Perhaps the Vikramaditya's flight deck is also dirty?

Not sure, but IIRC, the IN has removed the intake doors????????????

However, if Dabolim runways are THE issues, then how come (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 918551.ece):

Nearly 30 of the RD-33MK engines powering the twin-engine MiG-29K aircraft attached to the ‘Black Panther’ squadron have packed up ever since aviation activities got under way from the deck of the refurbished Soviet-era carrier that was inducted into the Indian Navy in Russia in November, 2013

Nearly 30 are out of service? That number is too many for one runway.

Then, are ALL 29K flights restricted to Dabolim? None are attributable to the carrier? Just asking.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2015 19:17

How is it that the Russians did not test and the IN accepted this?

Indian Navy MiG-29s awaiting Russian trials

The Indian Navy Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29Ks are awaiting trials by Russian manufacturer Irkut to prove that the Fulcrums can land and make a go-around on an aircraft carrier with only a single engine engaged, military sources in New Delhi say.

Some Indian media like The Hindu are questioning the operations capability of the new shipborne fighters that operate from the deck of the INS Vikramaditya, a former Kiev-class Russian aircraft carrier. Engine problems are the main reason of concern, with reportedly 30 of the MiG-29K engines already having problems on the 13 out of 45 ordered Navy Fulcrums commissioned so far.

The Indian Navy is now awaiting Russian trials on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov before it clears its MiG-29Ks for single-engine approaches and landings. The Vikramaditya and its air wing are still in working-up trials and do not operate too far from shore to give the fighter pilots a secondary airfield on land to divert to in case the jocks encounter technical issues with their planes

I would have thought that such tests would be normal.

?????????

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2015 20:26

As expected resident Rodina apologist has blamed the engine issue on the incompetent Indian Navy for keeping their bases dirty. Perhaps that also explains why the radars and structures were also packing up? Also why the hydraulics were seizing?

Oh wait. Its the Indians at fault. Would be a farce if not for the crooked justifications which keep rolling out.

John · Post by **John** » 28 May 2015 20:30

^ Single engine approaches for a carrier landing even for F-4 and F-18 is highly risky, can't say about Hornet but F-4 was never certified and even instructs against single engine landing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2015 20:32

John wrote:^ Single engine approaches for even F-4 and F-18 is highly risky.

All the more reason that this would have been nailed down BEFORE handing over the ship.