Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 19 Jul 2015 00:07

India would be better off investing in domestic shipyards to expand capacity and capability. Appeasing foreign nations does not help India pursue an independent foreign policy or project power beyond its shores. The Talwars are a good platform and should be built in India.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2015 00:22

the talwars and the shivaliks dont even have VLS SAM's, still depending on an antiquated launching system with a very limited capability missile to boot.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jul 2015 00:27

Rahul M wrote:the talwars and the shivaliks dont even have VLS SAM's, still depending on an antiquated launching system with a very limited capability missile to boot.

Shivaliks do. Talwars don't.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jul 2015 01:22

Philip wrote:The Talwars will come with a v.good all round package.BMos,improved SAMs,Shtil or even B-8,and except for having just one ASW/AEW helo,has the same weaponry as the P-17s/17As. At around 25% lower cost/size.

They're comparable only in that both each pack 8 BrahMos missiles. In most other respects (esp. air defence & ASW), the Shivalik is twice the warship that the Talwar is.

The design being a v.successful one,being built both for India and Russia,could even be exported in the future to friendly nations like Vietnam,etc.,just like the Kilos.

The design is 'very successful' only because India ordered it. It hasn't managed any other exports in the last 20 years.

The only Indian-built frigate that has any chance of being exported is the Shivalik (the Russians will undoubtedly market Yantar-built ships to Vietnam). Indian funds ought to be spent to ensure that an Indian design becomes 'very successful'.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2015 02:43

NRao wrote:"JSF" ain't coming. India is too loose a canon for the time being. I suspect it is for the same reason that whatever India asked for the engine was declined.

Carrier design and EMALS is pretty much it. Also note that was offered. India IIRC asked for a cat - steam.

India needs to put more collateral on the table. Dunno if that is possible. Very little chance I would think.

It is not even like tri-state logic here. Any war without khan influence or blessings can put a deep hole into India no matter how much we keep away from khan platforms. for that matter most core warship engines are from GE. A GE button can disable most of our capable ships.

the point being, we have not established a 100% genuine No-Dependency system. So, what we are talking is the dependency least required until you either win a war or can extend your time up to your breakdown time or depleted ammos scenario. I can't imagine that kind of a war India would get into against a single nation. It has to be a joint chippanda-paki attack that we must counter to look into these aspects.

essentially, if we don't see a two front war, then it is moot point not to engage in big-power projections and initially invest with khan equipment with deep rights, and in the near future have rights to replace systems and components with home-grown substitutes. we have already established our industry for integration and support. this is a good way to go.

either we think big, first by import and then substitution strategy with #makeInIndia initiatives will pay big returns not just mil-wise, but socio-economic-wise as well. we don't need to be classified as equivalent to P5.. because, there is nothing big with us to show we are equivalent. first, we have to get there and then seek for UNSC, etc.

we must move fast on big platforms.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Jul 2015 03:16

NRao wrote:"JSF" ain't coming. India is too loose a canon for the time being. I suspect it is for the same reason that whatever India asked for the engine was declined..

On the contrary, tech-sharing especially cutting-edge proprietary tech, is off-the-table. The F-35 in contrast has been designed from inception to prevent technology leaks. The absence of such characteristics on the F-22 was one of the reasons why it was barred from export. (Ironically, they couldn't keep their computer networks secure at the source itself, but that's a different issue.)

Point is, if we request it, we'll get it. The Navy seems very interested, but for some reason that eludes me completely, the IAF appears to suffers from 'tunnel-vision' when it comes to the Rafale.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Jul 2015 03:28

Bade wrote:India will be left with no choice other than the US for any kind of partnership. JSF is in our destiny, due to Chinese interests in the IOR. Vishal with EMALS guarantees a JSF purchase, perhaps the main reason why Lockheed was even mentioned in the media reports this week. Not a bad thing, geo-strategically anyway.

Yes, but remember they are sanction-happy and they can stop us from attacking pakis when the next Mumbai happens. Giving them control over our fighter fleet is suicide. We need to invest in 4G+++ a/c that can dogfight drones WVR. That is how the next WWII will be fought . yada yada.

Heaven forbid that we should think strategically (convergence of strategic interest). We prefer to plan for a better outcome of 1962 than to contemplate what an India-China clash will truly involve.

Hint: getting them to believe they have more to lose than we have beyond a red line.

Hint: Nixon ordered a full global thermonuclear alert in 1973 to underscore the madman option:

"The United States responded by putting its nuclear forces on worldwide alert on October 25. By the end of the day, the crisis abated when the Security Council adopted Resolution 340, which called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of all forces to their October 22 positions, and U.N. observers and peacekeepers to monitor the ceasefire. This time, the Israelis accepted the resolution. "

https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... i-war-1973.

Later as Nixon said to Kissinger, "I want them to think I'm crazy"

Do a paki on the Chinese

Our interests on these PRC issues converge with the US.

John · Post by **John** » 19 Jul 2015 04:19

Rahul M wrote:the talwars and the shivaliks dont even have VLS SAM's, still depending on an antiquated launching system with a very limited capability missile to boot.

The limited number of fire control radar are bigger limitation than ar launcher for shtil.

I am proponent of procuring more shivalik but i believe cost is main reason navy is reluctant. Shivalik cost about the same as Kolkata and if you adjust it for inflation it comes out to be more.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2015 04:20

Indian P-8I (N782DS) with a new sensor

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 04:46

if we request it

Check.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Jul 2015 05:36

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:The Talwars will come with a v.good all round package.BMos,improved SAMs,Shtil or even B-8,and except for having just one ASW/AEW helo,has the same weaponry as the P-17s/17As. At around 25% lower cost/size.
They're comparable only in that both each pack 8 BrahMos missiles. In most other respects (esp. air defence & ASW), the Shivalik is twice the warship that the Talwar is.

The design being a v.successful one,being built both for India and Russia,could even be exported in the future to friendly nations like Vietnam,etc.,just like the Kilos.

The design is 'very successful' only because India ordered it. It hasn't managed any other exports in the last 20 years.

The only Indian-built frigate that has any chance of being exported is the Shivalik (the Russians will undoubtedly market Yantar-built ships to Vietnam). Indian funds ought to be spent to ensure that an Indian design becomes 'very successful'.

The Shivalik seems to be too expensive, but why not mass priduce the kamorta instead. Cheap and close enough to the talwar, there is oodles of unused space on them. Once a uvls that can be used for quad packed barak or single bmos comes in, kamorta will pack plenty pf punch

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2015 08:36

we can do something like lease to buy option or change the product at 49% as restocking fees.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2015 08:44

Viv S wrote:
Rahul M wrote:the talwars and the shivaliks dont even have VLS SAM's, still depending on an antiquated launching system with a very limited capability missile to boot.
Shivaliks do. Talwars don't.

nope. both have the shtil-1 as primary SAM. we are not talking of point defence barak's here.

John, I would rather IN standardize on the P28 as a base to create dedicated ASW (already done) and multi-purpose boats (to be done) and churn those out. in stead of running after the talwars.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Jul 2015 08:57

On the EMALS for INS Vishaal and the implied associated acquisition of the F-35C or even F-35B, if done, would be a serious dependence on the US for offensive power projection. Do not see, why at this stage we absolutely need a nuclear powered carrier, especially if we have to learn to scale these type of reactors. Our core AOR spans from the Hormuz to Malacca and these do not require months of deployment. Also, it is a myth that dependence on tankers is eliminated for the rest of the fleet and indeed the carriers own air fleet is dependent on tanker supplied fuel. The core AOR is well within range of large fighters of the IAF and also within range of the air tank fleet that can use the mainland as its base to operate from. Our assets in A&N, Seychelles and Mauritius allow us further depth
.
I just do not see, why do we have to make such a huge strategic dependence on the US at this time, confirming the PRC charge that India is one of the claws of the US. Instead prefer that we build the Vishaal on our own, conventional powered with a ski jump. Build the necessary infrastructure to build a steam catapult and scale the reactor design before undertaking a nuclear powered carrier venture.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2015 09:25

Neither EMALS nor Steam CATS restricts the IN to a US aircraft apart from perhaps the E-2D. If the AMCA goes as per plan, the IN could simply move to an AMCA/LCA fleet for the new carrier, or simply buy more Mig-29's or Rafale M's if they are still in production by then.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 19 Jul 2015 12:11

brar_w wrote:Neither EMALS nor Steam CATS restricts the IN to a US aircraft apart from perhaps the E-2D. If the AMCA goes as per plan, the IN could simply move to an AMCA/LCA fleet for the new carrier, or simply buy more Mig-29's or Rafale M's if they are still in production by then.

LCA and Mig-29 aren't catapult rated and there won't be a ski-jump on a cat carrier

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 12:26

@ShauyaT,

If the AOR was what you state, then there is absolutely no way the US would have offered help with design, EMALS, etc (also note the sequence of the offers). India planned on 3 carriers, originally for the IOR. And, the three she had in mind were more than adequate for the IOR.

Cannot talk to the nuclear reactor topic, but they will have to decide on it right now.

On incremental design - making Vishal with ski jump - that is a non starter. Taking that path would place a cat equipped boat about 30 years from today. Too late by then. Worst idea.

Also sorry to see no talk about a naval AMCA so far.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2015 17:45

GeorgeWelch wrote:
brar_w wrote:Neither EMALS nor Steam CATS restricts the IN to a US aircraft apart from perhaps the E-2D. If the AMCA goes as per plan, the IN could simply move to an AMCA/LCA fleet for the new carrier, or simply buy more Mig-29's or Rafale M's if they are still in production by then.
LCA and Mig-29 aren't catapult rated and there won't be a ski-jump on a cat carrier

When is the carrier slated to be operational? What is stopping the IN from seeking an LCA to be rated for a CAT launch?

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jul 2015 19:25

My vote will be for Vishal with EMAL, nuclear powered perhaps scaled up to 75 or 80K, equipped with Lightnings.

In the next 20 years China would possibly (or is it probably) have an economic output that could equal or exceed the US, EU and Japan together. Who can predict this? But can this be ruled out? Absolutely not. Then, China will have the (economic) power to dissuade the US, EU and Japan to give India latest military technologies. Before such a possible scenario, India should eagerly grab every military technology that is offered (today) with zero hesitation.

Hypothetically, if China was offered these military technologies today, they will grab it within 24 hours. In India this will be discussed and negotiated for 24 years (example: artillery guns). Even after that if a positive decision is made, then, a brilliant Defense Minister will come along and downsize it (example: mountain strike corps) making all those who negotiated for 24 years look like idiots.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Jul 2015 19:34

^^^ Absolutely on the dot, just like your previous post. There is a reason why China is where it is, and it is not just about the size of their economy.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jul 2015 20:14

singha, http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/featu ... ation.html

we can begin talking to JSF using MADL. slowly integrate.. IOW, why not have separate force projection that is specifically tailored for NATO specific ops integration purposes for force projections.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 21:52

Philippines wants India at 'head table' to tackle China's maritime moves

For those that believe that India should build first in the IOR.

keine Zeit, Meine Herr.

Check out the quotes.

Worried at China fast usurping contested islets in the South China Sea, the Philippines has urged India to "be at the head table" in regional forums to ensure that Beijing adheres to international maritime laws.

Philippines Foreign Secretary Evan Garcia, addressing an Asean-India talk here, also praised India for settling its land and maritime dispute with Bangladesh, saying India has "shown the way to peaceful resolution of disputes", including through implementation of the Land Boundary Agreement.

He also said that India's "expression of full understanding of the Philippines position on the South China Sea is a considerable development" in ensuring maritime and navigational rights in the sea that China lays full claim over.

Commenting on China's "artificial island building" over the small rock features in the South China Sea that has "permanently altered the area", Garcia said his country has launched international arbitration for upholding of rule of law.

"China's peaceful rise is one desired by all, but this rise certainly has to be in accordance to rules based regime," he said.

He said the Philippines is glad that India is "expressing major interest" and stressing on rules-based regime in the region.

"India is not an invited guest, it should be at the head table as a partner in arms," he said, referring to the various regional forums where maritime and territorial disputes are taken up.

"India should be at the table where we discuss settling of these norms," he said at the ASEAN-India Eminent Person Lecture on "India-Philippines Relations: Ways and Means of Strengthening it, on Friday, organized by the ASEAN-India Centre and think tank Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) at the India Habitat Centre.

Taking a swipe at China, the Filipino official said there is a "very clear attempt by one particular country to rewrite the narrative of the region, and that it is trying to determine who should be at the table and who should talk about what. India should wisely ignore this and keep doing what it is doing for common good".

In another swipe at Beijing's economic clout in the region, he said: "Why leave salesmanship to just one power, India can come in and sell too."

Garcia said that in view of the "evolving landscape and seascape" in the region, India and the Philippines should look to each other as common partners and to ensure a region of greater peace and prosperity. He also suggested greater cooperation between "VIP" countries - Vietnam, India and the Philippines.

"If the world sees China as a rising power, so too does it respect India's own remarkable ascent," said Garcia and praised India's "tremendous progress" in improving literacy, health, education and in emergence of a big middle class.

The Philippines and China are at loggerheads over small rock features in the South China Sea, in a zone that Manila claims as its own, that China has been swiftly developing into large bases for its navy and air force

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 19 Jul 2015 22:24

brar_w wrote:When is the carrier slated to be operational? What is stopping the IN from seeking an LCA to be rated for a CAT launch?

Besides time and money?

Nothing, but just pointing out that not only does it not exist now, there are no current plans to make it happen. It seems rather imprudent to count on something that doesn't even reach the level of paper airplane.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2015 23:12

The IN wants to co-develop a Cat either steam based or EMALS. The signs and reports point to a co-development of carrier technology for a carrier that won't be operationalized for a lot many years into the future. There are far more important and hard to get challenges to overcome than clearing the LCA for a cat. launch. In fact given some of the challenges associated with co-developing and absorbing the technology, doing that is far easier. It should not take a decade + even if that means sending a team over to Lakehurst.

They have just issued a request for information for a new carrier. There is no reason to embark on getting the LCA-Navy to begin cat compatibility trials until there is a firm design, and a timeline associated with the same.

John · Post by **John** » 19 Jul 2015 23:25

Rahul M wrote: nope. both have the shtil-1 as primary SAM. we are not talking of point defence barak's here.

John, I would rather IN standardize on the P28 as a base to create dedicated ASW (already done) and multi-purpose boats (to be done) and churn those out. in stead of running after the talwars.

That may likely be the plan once they are all inducted especially since 3rd and 4th are incorporating some design changes. But keep in mind Kamarota are mainly designed for endurance their top speed is only 25 knots compared to 32 for talwar which would hamper its Anti shipping capabilities. So there likely needs to be some propulsion tweaks for other roles.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Jul 2015 23:27

rajrang wrote:

Hypothetically, if China was offered these military technologies today, they will grab it within 24 hours. In India this will be discussed and negotiated for 24 years (example: artillery guns). ...

You must realize that we don't want to be dependent on the US. Not having what we need is better than dependence.

(Being sarcastic here).

As to the MSC, MP actually did the right thing. UPA idiots authorized the corps but did not fund it. Others will doubtless disagree but if our goal is to 'strike' the PRC, it is not through 70K troops and infrastructure and logistics across difficult terrain. The money is better spent on more mobile assets that can deliver a punch where it hurts—along their coast.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Jul 2015 23:39

^^Time will tell on MSC. I bet it will be back to the initial number alloted in less than 5 years.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 20 Jul 2015 02:43

http://charly015.blogspot.com.es/2015/0 ... ccion.html

India is negotiating with Russia license production of Russian Project 12700 minesweeper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandri ... inesweeper

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 20 Jul 2015 02:52

If UPA did not fund it, then for heaven's sake fund it! Throwing the baby out with the bath water? Why argue about who is the idiot here. The costs divided by several years will be a negligible % of India's GDP. There is also a powerful political message, that India dares to even think of its land forces doing battle inside Chinese territory! Even the US or Japan have never had such plans since WWII. Not during the Korean or Vietnam wars when China was much weaker and the US relatively much stronger across the board. That is guts of the highest order. You got to compliment the former DM/Government for courage.

Regarding a punch, at least today it will be difficult for Indian naval assets to cross the S China sea teeming with submarines and shore based aircraft along the way and deliver a conventional punch of significance. In the future, the gap between the two navies will only increase in favor of China, given the economic disparity, even if the economic growth of India is consistently a couple of points higher every year for several years.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Jul 2015 03:34

"If UPA did not fund it, then for heaven's sake fund it!"

Where is the money? Rafales, LCA, Vikrant, Vishal, P8s etc. We are trying to fund a military that has been neglected since 1991.

"Regarding a punch, at least today it will be difficult for Indian naval assets to cross the S China sea teeming with submarines and shore based aircraft along the way and deliver a conventional punch of significance."

And you believe that a MSC can do what a SSGN cannot? You'll also need a whole air force to protect the MSC."

Talking about percentages of GDP in year X makes little sense. The budgets are done very year. 85% of Indian defense budget goes to opex. Raising a MSC of 70K only adds to the opex at the expense of capex for long range counterpunches.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2015 06:10

US Will Hold Elevated Trilateral Dialogue with India and Japan

The United States, Japan and India will elevate their trilateral dialogue to a ministerial level this fall in another boost for cooperation between the three nations, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced Monday.

Speaking at a conference on U.S.-India relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, Biden said the three countries would seek to upgrade their existing trilateral dialogue — first held in 2011 — to the level of the foreign ministers. The focus, Biden indicated, would be to strengthen the East Asia Summit (EAS), an annual forum attended annually by the leaders of 18 countries including the United States and India. As the region commemorates the tenth anniversary of the EAS this year, Washington and others have been pushing to deepen its institutionalization and boost its ability to handle global crises (See: “Malaysia as ASEAN Chair in 2015: What to Expect”).

“We’re also looking to schedule a ministerial level trilateral with Japan this fall to strengthen the East Asia Summit on its tenth anniversary,” Biden said.

The U.S.-India-Japan trilateral is one of several such arrangements that the United States is pursuing with allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific, Others include U.S.-Japan-Korea and U.S.-Australia-Japan, while still others are also being discussed among experts at various levels (See: “The Future of US-Japan-Vietnam Trilateral Cooperation“).

While reports had emerged last year that the countries were looking to elevate their trilateral dialogue, the last U.S.-India-Japan trilateral dialogue held in Honolulu this past month — its seventh iteration — featured officials at the same level. On the U.S. side, the discussion was co-chaired by Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Nisha Biswal and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel. Biden’s comments suggest that the fall meeting will finally feature officials at a higher level.

Biden said that the upgrading of the trilateral dialogue was indicative of the immense progress that the United States and India had made in their bilateral relationship over the past few years, particularly with the convergence of between Washington’s ‘rebalance’ and India’s Look East policy in the Asia-Pacific. On the security side, pointed to the example of the Malabar exercises, initially a U.S.-India bilateral naval exercise which has included Japan during several iterations and will again this year (See: “Japan to Join US, India in Military Exercises This Year”).

“When a small naval exercise called Malabar was first envisioned at a conference center twenty five years ago in Virginia, few could have imagined that one day it would include Japan,” Biden said.

He also said U.S.-India cooperation on aircraft carrier technology was making further advances. Earlier this year, U.S. officials had indicated that Washington would be willing to sell aircraft-carrier related technologies to India, including the EMALS catapult system for India’s aircraft carrier which currently lacks one. In a step forward, Biden said that a high-level Indian delegation would visit Newport News this fall for briefings and a tour of the USS Gerald Ford, the United States’ newest aircraft carrier, for whom the US firm General Atomics developed EMALS (See: “India’s New Aircraft Carrier Plans May Get a Boost”).

“Our emerging carrier cooperation epitomizes the strength of our security partnership and it’s a signal both of how far we have come and the potential for the future,” Biden said at the conference which was held in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal which was inked by the two sides in July 2005.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2015 06:17

Interesting article:

Indo-Russian naval cooperation: Sailing high seas

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2015 10:20

Ru Minesweepers:
We operated both Natya and Yevgenya class MCMs.Natyas are ocean-going,and a few still in service,around 7 or so out of 12.The Yevgenya were coastal minesweepers .7 transferred from the SU,all pensioned off (?).We seem to be bent upon acquiring two classes again.The oft-mentioned Korean ones,800t,the deal which seem to have floundered a little while ago. No idea where it stands now. Report below. The Russian class appears to be replacements for the smaller Yevgenya class,mentioned in the post above.

Indian Navy's Purchase of South Korean Minesweepers Grounded
Discussion in 'Indian Defence Forum' Sep 5, 2014.
http://defence.pk/threads/indian-navys- ... ed.332484/

Warship deal runs aground
Defence Ministry flags irregularities in purchase of mine-sweepers
[IMG]
A South Korean Navy minesweeper of the type India hopes to acquire.

India's first major defence hard-ware import from East Asia is in jeopardy after the defence ministry flagged irregularities in a Rs.2,300 crore deal to buy eight mine counter-measure vessels from South Korea.

On May 29 this year, the ministry encashed a Rs.3 crore bank guarantee furnished by the Kangnam Corporation, which had been shortlisted to supply the minesweepers to the Indian Navy. The liquidation of the guarantee came after an inquiry by the ministry found that the South Korean shipyard may have hired middlemen to facilitate the contract. Employing middlemen in defence deals is banned.

Vendors have to sign a pre-contract Integrity Pact stating that they will not offer bribes and are required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.3 crore. "There are questions about the people who the Korean shipyard hired and we are looking at whether their presence in negotiations can be construed as vitiating the process," a defence ministry spokesperson told India Today. The ministry is now awaiting the opinion of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to whom the case was forwarded in July.

Amit Cowshish, a former financial adviser to the defence ministry, says the quantum of the deviation from the agreement will determine the Government's next course of action. "Breach of the pre-contract Integrity Pact is a very serious matter and it will be difficult for the Government to compromise its own stand."

[IMG]
Kangnam Corporation was shortlisted as it was the cheaper of two firms that had bid for the proposal that was floated in 2008. The Navy wants eight 800-tonne vessels with composite anti-magnetic hulls that can clear sea mines laid by enemy warships, submarines and aircraft to blockade harbours during war. Two vessels would be imported from the foreign vendor for Rs.2,300 crore, a cost that covers technology transfer to build the remaining six vessels at the Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL).

The Navy plans to eventually get 24 such vessels over the next decade at a cost of Rs.24,000 crore. GSL is expected to build 16 more minesweepers in two batches of nine and seven, for a total Rs.16,000 crore. In 2008, Kangnam had bettered Italy's Intermarine Shipyard to close the deal, and by October 2011 it concluded price negotiations with the defence ministry. Kangnam's closest competitor, Italy's intermarine also approached the central vigilance commission with allegations of a lack of transparency in procedure. But sometime in 2012, a BJP MP who is now a cabinet minister in the Narendra Modi Government, wrote to then defence minister AK Antony, raising questions about the presence of defence agents hired by the South Korean shipyard at every stage of negotiations with the government. The ministry launched an internal inquiry which established deviations in the procedure.

As a consequence, the ministry did not sign the contract with the Korean shipyard. (Kangnam Corporation did not respond to a detailed questionnaire sent by India Today). Defence ministry officials believe that the agents were camouflaged as Kangnam's 'offset managers' to handle the mandated defence offsets in the deal, or the reinvestment of 30 per cent of the Rs.2,300 crore contract back into India. The name of a prominent Delhi-based arms agent has been doing the rounds as one of the possible beneficiaries of a three per cent commission in the deal.

Initially though, the defence ministry chose not to act on the findings of the inquiry. It just put the deal in limbo, not unlike the Army's case for acquiring 197 light utility helicopters where procedural deviations had been noticed in 2012. The case remained dormant till it received a fresh impetus when South Korean President Park Geun-he visited New Delhi in January this year. In a joint statement with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, she flagged the pending deal and asked "for his interest in support for the export of Korean minesweepers to India".

After a nudge from the political leadership, the acquisition wing of the defence ministry held a series of meetings between January and April, in which they finally discovered deviations in procedure. This led to the Kangnam bank guarantee being encashed in May.

When the NDA Government took over, it reviewed the UPA's blacklist of global defence firms. In two major decisions, the defence ministry lifted the 2005 ban on South Africa's Denel as well as the ban on dealings with Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica that was imposed after allegations of bribery in the VVIP helicopter deal came to light in 2012. The minesweeper deal also figured in the new Government's first Defence Procurement Board meeting on July 11 but a final decision on it is pending.

The Navy, meanwhile, distraught over gaps in its minesweeping capabilities and the possibility of procurement delays, has strongly pitched for a relook at the Kangnam deal, arguing that its requirement of the minesweepers is extreme and urgent. "We don't have sufficient minesweepers to protect even one harbour in a crisis," a senior naval officer said. Only seven of the 12 minesweepers that were acquired from the erstwhile Soviet Union between 1978 and 1988 are in active service. And only four of them were considered fit for a mid-life upgrade. Delay in the Korean deal, therefore, may compromise the Navy's minesweeping potential.

For the defence ministry, it is a case that can no longer be swept under the carpet.

Source:- Defence Ministry flags irregularities in purchase of mine-sweepers : DEFENCE - India Today

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2015 11:13

Largest 'Make in India' chopper contract: Navy to screen private and public vendors for Rs 20K-crore deal

NEW DELHI: Moving ahead on its plans to procure new utility helicopters, the Navy is selecting vendors from the Indian private and public sector for the project and has calculated that the acquisition would cost over Rs 20,000 crore.

A firm proposal has been moved by the Navy to the ministry of defence that specifies that it requires 110 naval utility helicopters, out of which 94 are to be made in India in collaboration with a foreign partner. Sources said the Navy has also moved a pro ..

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2015 12:09

Rahul M wrote:
Viv S wrote:Shivaliks do. Talwars don't.
nope. both have the shtil-1 as primary SAM. we are not talking of point defence barak's here.

The Barak 1 is a VL-SAM. And the same silos could also accommodate the Barak-8 in a Shivalik-derivative.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2015 12:35

Cain Marko wrote:The Shivalik seems to be too expensive, but why not mass priduce the kamorta instead. Cheap and close enough to the talwar, there is oodles of unused space on them. Once a uvls that can be used for quad packed barak or single bmos comes in, kamorta will pack plenty pf punch

The Shivalik are still more capable dollar-for-dollar than the Talwar. If we need a multi-role ship that's the one we need to be building at Pipavav.

That said, our air assets are enough to dominate the IOR. Anti-ship capability on a warship is therefore not a glaring priority, for the near future at least. The primary threat in the region comes from hostile submarines, both Chinese & Pakistani. So yes, scaling up the Kamorta production makes a lot of sense.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jul 2015 13:06

It is the slow delivery of the P-28s,P-17s,etc. that has resulted in the Talwar deal.Add to that the huge inflated costs,some above 250%! 17 years to build a B class FFG,12 years for a P-17 Shivalik,and P-28 construction began in 2005,deliveries of 4 2,800t/3,400t corvettes expected to be completed only in 2017! Cost overrun:

with a cost overrun from the originally estimated ₹28 billion (US$441 million) to ₹70 billion (US$1 billion),

In addition,the P-28s do not have the all round weaponry of a Talwar,much inferior weapon systems,no SAMs,no BMos SSMs,no heavyweight TTs,smaller main gun,but are meant mainly for ASW duties. It is the high cost of the P-28s that has also seen the IN look for building around 16 shallow water ASW corvettes of approx. 750t.These will also replace the 4 Pauk/Abhay class ASW corvettes. Talwars built in Russia take only 2.5 years. One hopes that Pip's delivery time will be around at least 3 years per ship.

PS The first Kol class DDG was started in 2003.The ship was delivered to the In only in 2014,taking 11 years.Reasons here:

The delays in the construction programme have been attributed to persistent design changes made by the Indian Navy to incorporate new weapons systems and sensors, failure by a Ukrainian shipyard to deliver the ship's propellers and shafts and the contract later being awarded to a Russian firm,[18] and finally the delay in the delivery of the Barak 8 anti-air missiles, which are still in the final stages of completion with Israel Aerospace Industries and the Defence Research and Development Organisation.[19]

The Kochi and Chennai will take approx. 10 years time before commissioning by 2017.Escalation estimated around 225%.P-17s took 10,7 and 9 yrs respectively for delivery.Intriguing piece of unique eqpt. aboard says one report

Also, INS Shivalik is the first ship in the Indian Navy with chapati- and dosa-makers on board.[1]

.The P17s if built from keel laying to commissioning taking 5 years to build will be a good achievement,cutting down time.That the 7 ship order has been split between two yards should ensure that delays in one may be offset by delivery in schedule by the other.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2015 13:29

Philip wrote:It is the slow delivery of the P-28s,P-17s,etc. that has resulted in the Talwar deal.Add to that the huge inflated costs,some above 250%! 17 years to build a B class FFG,12 years for a P-17 Shivalik,and P-28 construction began in 2005,deliveries of 4 2,800t/3,400t corvettes expected to be completed only in 2017! Cost overrun:
with a cost overrun from the originally estimated ₹28 billion (US$441 million) to ₹70 billion (US$1 billion),

In addition,the P-28s do not have the all round weaponry of a Talwar,much inferior weapon systems,no SAMs,no BMos SSMs,no heavyweight TTs,smaller main gun,but are meant mainly for ASW duties.

- The Shivalik & Kamorta are both brand new designs and therefore take time to bring to production, unlike the Talwar-derivatives of Krivak class with roots in 1970s.
- There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Pipavav will have more trouble with the Shivalik (no ToT hassles) than it would with the Talwar.

As for cost escalations. No one that can vigorous defend a 300% cost overrun in the Gorshkov acquisition, has a leg to stand on when it comes to (smaller) overruns in domestic programs.

The Kamortas aren't mean to be 'all-round' ships. They're first and foremost sub-hunters and better at it than the Talwars. They can be equipped with a Barak VLS module for a basic air defence roles. And at Rs 7000 crore for four corvettes, they're far cheaper too.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2015 13:31

Philip wrote:Talwars built in Russia take only 2.5 years. One hopes that Pip's delivery time will be around at least 3 years per ship.

And pigs might fly.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 20 Jul 2015 15:17

Well, if you are wiiling to pay 3 billion instead of 700 million (price for 3 for RuNavy), at least you expect speedy delivery.