Indian Navy News & Discussion - 22 April 2015

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Aug 2016 14:15

Expect the Americans to shy away from any sort of collaboration with DCNS .. wont happen !

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Aug 2016 15:53

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Q1i5OT67CM/ ... orpene.jpg

FWIW:
Vice Admiral (Retired) Arun Kumar Singh, an Indian Navy submarine veteran, explains that much of the information in the 22,400 leaked pages would be commercial information relating to the Scorpene’s operating characteristics, that DCNS would legitimately share with any navy that expressed interest in buying the Scorpene.

“An operational disaster, however, would be the leakage of information relating to the sound that the Scorpene radiates into the water; or revealing the maximum depth to which the vessel can dive and fire weapons from”, says Singh.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Aug 2016 15:55

IMHO the broad specifications have been compromised, making the opponents efforts that much easier (including Aussie navy). Even if there is some relief that "restricted" was leaked and not "top secret" and some specifics remain secure..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Aug 2016 16:00

Another of the redacted images regarding weapon system.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CquAH0hUkAIVNL8.jpg

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Aug 2016 16:20

its looking funny that they sought to darken the specifics

.. they should not post these if "secrecy" was what they meant

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 Aug 2016 17:31

Australian doing full haraamzadagi now :

http://zittara.com/2016/08/27/his-newsp ... ournalist/

“His newspaper can post all the leaked documents online if India feels they pose no threat”, Australian Journalist

Australian investigative journalist Cameron Stewart, who broke the sensational story on the leak of data on Indian Scorpene submarines, has questioned the Indian Navy’s attempt to downplay the leak, saying his newspaper can post all the leaked documents online if India feels they pose no threat.

In an email response to questions from IANS, Stewart, an Associate Editor with The Australian, said the Navy was just trying to do “damage control”.

“The Navy is just trying to control the public relations damage of the leak, so they are trying to play it down. If they claim there is no damage, then maybe we should now put all 22,400 confidential documents on the net,” Stewart told IANS.

“I have gone through the documents in detail with a defence expert (who helped me redact those few we put out in the web) and there is no doubt these documents should never be available in the public arena. If they applied to the Australian Navy, they would be highly classified,” he said.

“This is a major and serious data leak despite the self-interested spin from India and France in trying to play it down.”

On a question on whether the documents were there in the open market, Stewart said: “We don’t know. They were vulnerable on the Internet for some time, so I think (it) is likely they have been taken but I am not in any position to know this.”

The 22,400 pages of information leaked from DCNS, as reported by The Australian, has crucial information on the DCNS-designed Scorpene submarines that are set to form the core of India’s submarine fleet once inducted.

Some of the documents uploaded by The Australian on its website include data on functional description, including the cylindrical and flank array, sonar interception and a number of other details on the boat as well as on noise generated during patrol, attack and snorting (staying submerged but taking in surface air through the snorkel) modes.

The newspaper has redacted crucial information in the documents.

Asked about the source of the document and the leak, Stewart said his next report in The Australian would explain it. He also said the newspaper was not planning to upload more leaked documents “right now”.

Anyway when saga gets over around after 1 year he should be met with extreme prejudice, painfully

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2016 18:28

Karan M wrote:Another of the redacted images regarding weapon system.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CquAH0hUkAIVNL8.jpg

I thought the docs were in French. No?

Karan M wrote:IMHO the broad specifications have been compromised, making the opponents efforts that much easier (including Aussie navy). Even if there is some relief that "restricted" was leaked and not "top secret" and some specifics remain secure..

I would hinge the future of these French subs on how confident the IN submariners would be using them. I would not want these young men, somewhere way in the future, to blame these leaks for anything that may happen in the sea.

And, for once I am disappointed in Parrikar.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Aug 2016 18:32

The documents are out from 2011. So if it has surfaced now, it's a good thing that we know that its no more secret. This will help in finding solution to the problem rather than one day end up with a big surprise. There may be many such things that are still hidden about the bells and whistles that we imported.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2016 18:33

uddu wrote:The documents are out from 2011. So if it has surfaced now, it's a good thing that we know that its no more secret. This will help in finding solution to the problem rather than one day end up with a big surprise. There may be many such things that are still hidden about the bells and whistles that we imported.

The docs were out in 2011, but France and India - it seems - got to know about the theft only on Aug 24, 2016.

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Aug 2016 18:34

lets see what he wanted .. oh let me have just a mil..i will hand over all the stuff to you ..and no copies made.. after he turns over to a rival country and say hey look what i have got ! .. just a couple of mil and u can have all that ! .. well what should be done is pay 50k to a local goonda and set it right

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Aug 2016 18:40

Yup, so in a way its a blessing that he exposed it. Else we must have never known even though though our enemies must be having all the details related to it and must have been a big surprise during war.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Aug 2016 20:38

Karan M wrote:The Nation
It’s in the mail: how submarine secrets surfaced in Australia

In late April 2013 a Sydney postman reached into his satchel and pulled out a small envelope containing the secrets of India’s new submarine fleet.

He dropped the letter, with a Singapore stamp on it, in a private post office box and moved on.

The envelope, containing a small data disc, remained there for days, along with a Telstra bill and junk mail, before being picked up on April 24, 2013, by a man who took it home and pushed the disk into his computer.

..........{Rest Snipped}...............

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... f27819acfb

Above excerpt from the Australian article clearly suggests that the leak of Scorpene data took place prior to April 24, 2013. The Nehru-Gandhi family led Congress party via the UPA coalition was in power then.

The Nehru-Gandhi family led Congress party after its initial attack on the BJP led NDA Government of Prime Minister Modi seems to have got around to recognizing this inconvenient truth and hence has turned circumspect:

Digvijay Singh Holds Fire On Scorpene Data Leak Issue

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 27 Aug 2016 22:09

From the standpoint of securing data the issues are:

How come all of this sensitive information is centralized in 1 computer in DCNS? And how come an individual has the ability to copy all of this data on a disc and just walk out of what should be a secure facility? Don't the French take their security seriously? Computers with this kind of information should not have any ports. Furthermore individuals should be frisked before entering and exiting such facilities?

What is even more incredible is that the French were not only robbed but blissfully unaware that they were robbed for 5 years after the event. The theft took place in 2011 and the Australian newspaper broke this news now. What else have the French been robbed off that they are unaware of to this date?

The expose in the Australian newspaper is to point out the risks such a leak prone environment in France poses to Australian national security. I wish the Indian defence establishment had the same vigilant approach on these issues. In this case India is an incidental casualty, not the prime target of this expose.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 27 Aug 2016 22:54

Gurus,

You will see lot of hubbla from DDM about how frenchies cannot be trusted
Bonhomie and game changing miracle Gobar Gas effects of signing LEMOA

See Carter pushing for teens under MII
But after parrikars videsh yatra we will hear good news that dalals who released intended to get response from desh would be rubbing their hands
JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 27 Aug 2016 23:05

What does the whistleblower mean he will turn the disc over to the australian government hain ji! The Australian government is one of the adversaries to the Indian Navy. Those aussies are constantly snooping around Indian waters.

India's def attache needs to take possession of the disc before the Aussie Navy has a chance to get a dekko at them!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 27 Aug 2016 23:08

The aussie newspaper and its journalist must know that the Frogs will not like it it if they lost a contract worth $50 billion due to their trying to win some journalism prize and playing to the gallery

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Aug 2016 06:06

https://www.facebook.com/TejasMrca/phot ... =3&theater

The vessel's "signature" will be known only once it heads for the open seas. An official added that the data in the documents pertained to a simulator.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Aug 2016 23:21

So ...............................

Scorpène leak: French firm DCNS moves court for injunction against 'The Australian' newspaper

Melbourne: Embattled French defence firm DCNS has approached the Supreme Court in Australia seeking an injunction against The Australian from further publishing the leaked documents of India's Scorpene submarine project.

The DCNS has also sought a court order to the newspaper to hand over the documents in its possession and removal of the contents from its website.
Representational image. Reuters

Representational image. Reuters

"The publication of this highly valuable document causes a direct harm to DCNS and its customer in terms of spread of sensitive and restricted information, image and reputation," The Australian quoted an affidavit by DCNS lawyer Justine Munsie.

The newspaper had said that it will publish the documents regarding the weapons system of the submarine on Monday.

Over 22,000 pages of top secret data on the capabilities of six highly advanced submarines being built for the Indian Navy in Mumbai in collaboration with a French company have been leaked.

The move by DCNS comes after a former commander of US Pacific fleet Submarine Force warned that the leaks would undermine the confidence in the ability of French companies to protect classified information.

Rear Admiral (Retd) John Padgett, who is also the president of the US Naval Submarine League, has said that aggressive action needed to be taken to probe the leak and that France should share the outcome with Australia.

The secret data included details of the capabilities of SM39 anti-ship missile expected to be used on the Scorpene and classified information about the number of targets the missile was capable of processing.

Explaining the implications of the leak, Admiral Padgett said, "It is never good for an opponent to have your playbook."

"As a member of NATO, the French government and French military demonstrate that they enforce effective security controls and have a solid reputation with their allies," he said.

He said the investigation had to determine exactly how the breach occurred and what "aggressive action" would be taken to correct deficient security controls.

His comments came as a French public prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation into the data leak, with DCNS filing a complaint for breach of trust.

"We filed a complaint against unknown persons for breach of trust with the Paris prosecutor," said a DCNS spokesman.

The DCNS has won a contract to design Australia’s new $50 billion submarine fleet

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 29 Aug 2016 00:24

Akshay Kapoor wrote:T Sarkar sir, what's the worst case tactically and operationally and what can we do to mitigate the damage at a tactical and ops level. If you were FOS, FOCWF/EF and a sub Captian what would you do ?

First & foremost, the MoD needs to sue DCNS & the French Government for breach of contract and charge full refund + interest on $3.6 billion since October 2005. We're known as a soft state because of political + bureaucratic + foreign policy foolishness and this perception needs to change.

However, given that Scorpenes are the stealthiest technology made available to India along with manufacturing technology, its easier said than done. Indigenous R&D will take decades. Scorpene technology will benefit ATV program follow on. INS Arihant isnt as stealthy as INS Kalvari.

There is a technology denial regime, for example, Japan refused to participate in Project 75I despite NM offering them participation. Both Germany with Type 216 and the French with Shortfin Barracuda refused to offer those designs to India. US offers F-16 & F-18 lines to India but not F-15 whose line is also closing or F-35.

Practically and operationally, the fig leaf presently offered by IN officials does hold good.

The Type 877/636 submarines are in use by China, so their characteristics are known. How skillfully its crew deploy it makes the difference. Adm Bhagwat correctly spoke about using thermoclines. While sonar frequencies might help enemy in programming decoys, how the operator plays with those frequencies is something dependent on operator.

So yes, while this is a big hit even before Scorpene started its innings, operationally nothing changes and it will be business as usual.

MiG-21 performance were known to US via Iraqi defector to Israel in 70s but in joint exercises 40 years later, IAF MiG-21 pulled off some nasty tricks.

After 1965 Tashkent Agreement, the Soviets attempted to woo Pakistan and sold radars and Mi-8 helicopters. PA in 1971 Bangladesh used Mi-8 helicopters while IAF used older Mi-4 helicopters. Yet IAF helibridged the Meghna and strategically broke the PA's back. The PA Mi-8 escaped to Burma.

P-35 radar was installed at Dhaka and later moved to Malir just before the war.

The Pakistanis were offered Osa missile boats but they rejected it after trials on the grounds of 1. Lack of range 2. Poor Strength & Seaworthiness 3. Low Quality Machinery. Cdr Babru Bahan Yadav worked around 1 & 2 by having them towed by nylon hawsers by Petya corvettes, though the poor quality engines had finished their operational life in the war itself. The missile launchers were retrofitted to old Whitby class INS Talwar & Trishul.

To quote Admiral Hiranandani's From Transition to Triumph Page 134 onwards

THE PAKISTAN NAVY'S INTERACTION WITH THE SOVIET UNION (1966 TO 1969)

After the Rann of Kutch incident in May 1965, the US had suspended all military and economic aid both to India and to Pakistan. In July 1965, the Soviet Union offered economic and other assistance to Pakistan, in an endeavour to entice Pakistan away from its dependence on the US and on China.

In November 1965, in preparation for the Pakistan Foreign Ministers delegation to Moscow to prepare for the later discussions at Tashkent, Pak NHQ put in a requirement for six submarines, eight missile boats, twelve motor torpedo boats, maritime reconnaissance aircraft, mines and torpedoes.

In June 1966, a Pakistan naval delegation visited the Soviet naval bases in Odessa and Sevastopol in the Black Sea. They were shown a submarine, an anti submarine vessel, a missile boat, a Landing Ship Tank (LST) and a motor torpedo boat. Neither mines nor maritime reconnaissance aircraft were offered or shown.

In May 1968, a two ship Soviet naval squadron visited Karachi. It was the first ever visit of Soviet warships to Pakistan. Discussions centred on the Soviet side being able to help modernise the ships of the Pakistan fleet. The Pakistan Government also formally requested for a feasibly study of fitting Soviet surface to surface missile on the Pakistan Navy's destroyers.

In July 1968, a high powered Pakistani delegation to Moscow was offered six missile boats and associated support infrastructure. However the Pakistan Navy's assessment was that the smallness of the missile boat would denigrate its effectiveness in rough seas, because the vertical accelerations likely to be experienced during the monsoon months would exceed the safety limits for missile firing.

Absolutely correct assessment!

And here Sam Manekshaw argument with Indira Gandhi for a winter war helped, along with snow blocking Himalayan passes to counter possible Chinese intervention.

They therefore asked the Soviet side to either give a larger 800 ton missile boat or, if that was not possible, to study the feasibility of fitting missiles on the existing ships. In early 1969, a Soviet team studied the problem. In due course, the Soviet side informed the Pakistan Navy that they had no plans for building larger missile boats nor was it feasible to install the missile boat rockets in the existing ships of the Pakistan Navy; they advised the Pakistan Navy to go in for the missile boats which had already been offered.

"The Story of the Pakistan Navy" states: (Page 288)

`After the Russian `verdict', there was much soul searching in NHQ. Lengthy discussions eventually produced a consensus that it would not be in our interest to opt for the Osa Class missile boats. Apart from the obvious limitations of weather, there were other considerations too. Unlike the Indian Navy in time of war, the Pakistan Navy missile boats would have to look for targets in an area 500 miles or more away from their base. The range, endurance and anti-aircraft defence of Osa class boats were woefully inadequate for such operations.

`In any future conflict, Pakistan expected the main threat to emanate from Indian submarines and missile boats. The Osas would be almost irrelevant in countering the same. At best, they would give a fifty percent chance in a missile boat vs missile boat encounter, hardly worthwhile when you can destroy such a boat with impunity and at will from the air. (CNS questioned the validity of this statement
as the Navy had no aircraft). Against submarines, the Osas had no role to play whatsoever.

Then there was aspiration for bigger & better toys

There was also the over-riding fear that having provided the missile boats, the Government, strapped for finances as it was, would be unwilling to approve the replacement of the aging and obsolete destroyers of the PN Fleet. If that happened, the PN would be reduced to being a coastal navy which would be effective only at certain times of the year.

`With due regard for all relevant factors, a case was prepared for replacing three old destroyers with Type 21 frigates to be obtained from the UK without actually rejecting the offer of the missile boats. The implication was that the Navy's primary requirement was replacement of its aged surface ships. The missile boats, if the government wished to buy them, should be in addition and not in lieu. Admiral Ahsan, while he was the Commander-in-Chief, personally took the file to President Ayub Khan. "The President," he later said "would agree to missile boats only and nothing else."

Even Ayub Khan came close to buying the Osa boats!

In March 1969 the Soviet Defence Minister, Marshal Grechko, led a large military delegation to Pakistan. Admiral Smirnov, the Commander of the Soviet far Eastern Fleet based at Vladivostok, visited Karachi and held discussions with the Pakistan Naval Chief...

...Subsequent discussions culminated in an understanding to supply Soviet military equipment to Pakistan. In preparation for the Navy acquiring missile boats,personnel were selected and given Russian language courses.

And then suddenly in July 1969, a shift in policy at the political level altered the whole course of events. Although some Russian equipment was delivered to the Army and the Air Force, the chapter on naval assistance from the Soviet Union was abruptly closed.

This brief interaction between the Soviet side and the Pakistan Navy, when viewed in the context of Indo Soviet naval relations, pinpoints three aspects relevant to the events in the 1971 war:
(a) In 1966, after their mediation at Tashkent, the Soviet side offered and showed to the Pakistan Navy the same ships and submarines as they had done to the Indian Navy in 1964.
(b) Whereas the Indian Navy showed no interest in the Soviet missile boat offer in 1964 and contracted for their acquisition only in 1969, the Pakistan Navy's acquaintance with the capabilities of these boats started as early as October 1965 when due to the distance involved, the Indonesian Navy's Soviet supplied "missile boats arrived in Pakistan waters after the cease fire and then stayed on till such time as the chances of hostilities had receded".

The Pakistan Navy then had detailed interaction with the Soviet side between 1966 and 1969 regarding the capabilities and limitations of the
missile boats. And again in May 1971, Pakistan's C-in-C Navy visited Egypt where he was given a comprehensive briefing on the Soviet Osa and Komar Class missile boats acquired by the Egyptian Navy. All this interaction would have confirmed Pakistan naval assumptions that the missile boats were meant solely for harbour defence. This would explain the total surprise achieved during the Indian Navy's first missile action off Karachi on night 4/5 December when three ships were sunk.

So we've been through worse information disclosures from Soviet Union, Indonesia, Egypt & Ummah and come out stronger.

What the Pakistanis could not foresee is the innovativeness of two gentlemen named Babru Bahan Yadav and Gopal Rao helped by foresight of Sam Manekshaw.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 29 Aug 2016 01:19

^^ Excellent post tsarkar. Thanks. Gives some perspective.

arun · Post by **arun** » 29 Aug 2016 06:59

Without comment an explanation put together by Sushant Singh of Indian Express as to why the Scorpene data leak may not be significant in compromising the operations of the submarine:

Why Scorpene data leak does not compromise security of Project-75 : Sushant Singh spoke to experts and submarine veterans to look at the impact of each of the 10 kinds of data breaches that The Australian newspaper reported last week.

Captain J S Malik, a retired submariner with 32 years of experience who served as Director of Submarine Operations in Navy Headquarters, said, “Most of this data is generic and belongs to Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQR) provided by the Navy to the French company, and ‘binding data’ for the product. It does not pertain to any specific submarine, and has limited usage for the adversary.”

Commodore A Jai Singh, a retired submariner who was associated with Project-75 preparations at Navy Headquarters at the turn of the century, “the only thing, which if leaked out from the supplier, that can really compromise the operation of our submarines is the source code of the Fire Control System. It is a top secret thing which the DCNS doesn’t even share with the company providing the weapons. The Australian hasn’t claimed that it is in the possession of the software code, and besides that, everything else is not really going to matter.”

He added, “Just the generic technical specifications are little indication of a submarine’s operational capability. The element of stealth and superiority is how a navy operates its submarines with the equipment on board and therein lie the vital elements of secrecy essential for submarine operations.”

Three top Navy sources have confirmed to The Indian Express that the documents put out so far are not the same as the ones with the Navy. These are dated versions from a period well before the signing of the contract with DCNS in 2005.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Aug 2016 09:35

Thanks TSarkar, I grew up reading Kuldip Nayyar's books thinking Soviet offer was limited to T-54/55 tanks and 130mm guns only, but this is news for me.

However, a few observations, the success of the Osa class missile boats along with Styx missiles was in developing unorthodox tactics like towing the missile boats to outside Kaarchi and then using anti ship missiles to light up Sui refinery. In addition Pakis did not have enough ECM capability to counter these tactics, which will not be the case in the future

In the case of Scorpenes, the Submariners will have to again train hard and come up with innovative measures to outsmart the PN and PLAN. Wish them all the best!

We should go ahead with both Rafale and Scorpene projects. Nation cannot afford another HDW or Bofors repetition.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 29 Aug 2016 09:37

On a side note, the Scorpene leak validates the wisdom of diversifying arms purchases. Even if leaked, 1/3 of Navy's submarines will have to revamp their SOPs...and the weapons suite for these are still WIP.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Aug 2016 17:43

Minor fire on INS Dega runway after Mig-29 K jettisons drop tank accidentally

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Aug 2016 17:54

No major damage on the ground. Thankfully.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Aug 2016 17:57

uddu wrote:The documents are out from 2011. So if it has surfaced now, it's a good thing that we know that its no more secret. This will help in finding solution to the problem rather than one day end up with a big surprise. There may be many such things that are still hidden about the bells and whistles that we imported.

we don't really know the true extent of the leaks. Only what this smug, self satisfied "duty conscious" white skinned aussie crap journalist has put out.

The french should anyway pay for new systems to replace the compromised ones.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Aug 2016 18:01

--- Self Deleted ---
Comment based on partial report

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Aug 2016 18:06

let's wait for the complete facts.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 29 Aug 2016 18:50

Was it jettisoned or it actually fell off ? Saw a tweet mentioning the later.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Aug 2016 19:28

Karthik S wrote:Was it jettisoned or it actually fell off ? Saw a tweet mentioning the later.

It would be foolish to jettison this tank purposely. In the unlikely event that it actually was jettisoned, there are many places near INS Dega where it would have been possible to do this safely without jeopardizing human lives or property.

It must have been an accident or malfunction.

Either way, it's a very serious business and could very well have resulted in a major tragedy.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 29 Aug 2016 22:42

Sid wrote:
JTull wrote:Minor fire on INS Dega runway after Mig-29 K jettisons drop tank accidentally

http://english.mathrubhumi.com/polopoly ... /image.jpg

From @ShivAroor

Sequence of Events:

MiG-29K takes off, one of its drop-tanks falls off & explodes on runway. Fighter gets airborne with 2nd tank. 2/n

Pilot ordered to fly out to sea and jettison 2nd drop tank. Tries. Malfunction. 2nd tank doesn't drop. Tries 4 times, doesn't happen. 3/n

While returning for a landing attempt, the malfunctioning 2nd drop tank falls, crashing into car park near CISF quarters. Close shave. 4/n

Pilot finally lands MiG-29K safely at Vizag. Investigation ordered. Extremely serious snag/malfunction, could have doomed aircraft. 5/5

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 30 Aug 2016 00:44

Kakarat wrote: Please dont comment without knowing the facts, May of our pilots have given their life trying to save people on land

From @ShivAroor

Sequence of Events:

MiG-29K takes off, one of its drop-tanks falls off & explodes on runway. Fighter gets airborne with 2nd tank. 2/n

Pilot ordered to fly out to sea and jettison 2nd drop tank. Tries. Malfunction. 2nd tank doesn't drop. Tries 4 times, doesn't happen. 3/n

While returning for a landing attempt, the malfunctioning 2nd drop tank falls, crashing into car park near CISF quarters. Close shave. 4/n

Pilot finally lands MiG-29K safely at Vizag. Investigation ordered. Extremely serious snag/malfunction, could have doomed aircraft. 5/5

My comments were based on what was noted in article itself. Please refer to line below. But with hindsight I was incorrect to post a feedback so soon after the incident.

"Interestingly, the pilot continued with his mission and jettisoned the other drop tank into a CISF Colony road, which was free from any habitation......."

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 30 Aug 2016 01:34

Sid wrote:
Kakarat wrote:

From @ShivAroor

Sequence of Events:

My comments were based on what was noted in article itself. Please refer to line below. But with hindsight I was incorrect to post a feedback so soon after the incident.

"Interestingly, the pilot continued with his mission and jettisoned the other drop tank into a CISF Colony road, which was free from any habitation......."

Sorry, Not your mistake. Have edited my reply since you have deleted your comments

Lets move on

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 30 Aug 2016 02:28

Hi,

Just a question to guru's,Should we even consider another 3 scorpene's to be built at MDL?after this fiasco.

Thanks

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 30 Aug 2016 03:02

narayana wrote:Hi,

Just a question to guru's,Should we even consider another 3 scorpene's to be built at MDL?after this fiasco.

Thanks

Hope not, we must concentrate on our own SSNs.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Aug 2016 03:23

tsarkar wrote: There is a technology denial regime, for example, Japan refused to participate in Project 75I despite NM offering them participation. Both Germany with Type 216 and the French with Shortfin Barracuda refused to offer those designs to India. US offers F-16 & F-18 lines to India but not F-15 whose line is also closing or F-35.

Tsarkar ji,
Regarding submarine offer for P75I, it was clear that french had openly said to fellow white australians that they'll be given tech which french will never offer to Bharat.

Also Japanese silently refused...

But I thought as soon as they lost the german's offered a "no holds barr... tech transfer for P 75i " from there side there hasn't even been a whisper of any nakhra :

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 138779.cms

In a departure from its traditional approach to business in India, Germany is for the first time offering a military deal under the government-government umbrella for its new-generation conventional submarines that have exceptional underwater endurance.

While in the past the German government had kept away from contracts being bagged by its arms industries in India, the HDW 214 submarines are being offered as a special case for Indian Navy's requirement of six boats, which are to be made in India at an estimated cost of over Rs 60,000 crore.

Sources told ET that the formal proposal is being shared with the defence ministry in which the German government will give assurances on fair price, technology transfer and quality.

Russian and French submarines are, too, competing for the mega P 75I project, which is likely to see a private sector yard in India carry out a major chunk of the work. India will be mandating Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) - a technology that enables the submarine to remain underwater for several days at a stretch instead of coming up to surface frequently to replenish oxygen needed to burn the fuel — for the submarines.

"The offer has certain assurances that the product will meet Indian requirements," an official involved in the process told ET. Russia, which is developing its own AIP system, has already advised India to conclude the P 75I project under a government deal as it has too many complexities of technology transfer.

German company Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems that manufactures the submarine said it "is not in a position to comment on talks between the governments of the two nations", but said it was interested in offering its 214 class boats with "robust transfer of technology, training and meeting offset obligations". "We define this as a 'no-holds barred' transfer of technology in line with Modi government's 'Make in India' push," the company spokesperson said in response to a detailed questionnaire by...

I am not arguing against your point just putting this news forward for manthan:
http://www.spsnavalforces.com/news/?id= ... d-fighters

According to sources the Germans have offered their most advanced, recently out of the design table, the Type- 216 submarines to India. The basic design of this submarine is based on Type-214, which is double hulled with two decks and includes a fuel cell, Permasyn motor and Lithium ion batteries. This submarine is also equipped with Air Independent Propulsion technology, which the Indian navy wants to have in all its future diesel submarines.

The Submarine has a displacement of 4000 tonnes and has a range of 19,300 kms at 10 knots while its maximum speed is 20 knots. It has endurance of 80 days and has 6 x 21 torpedo tubes and can accommodate 18 torpedoes or anti-ship missiles. The sub has vertical launch system. Since this design is not yet proven, the Indian Navy may ask for Type – 214 submarines.

After hardselling the German military hardware in New Delhi during meeting with the top political brass in New Delhi the German defence minister flew in to Mumbai where she visited Western Naval Command Headquarters and met the Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Vice Admiral S.P.Singh Cheema and also visited the Indian Naval Ship Mumbai.

Trying to show the closeness between India and Germany on Security issues Mr Ursula had said, while addressing a meeting of Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, “ Prime Minister Modi made the case for international enterprises to set up shops in India and for closer collaboration with the German economy,.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Aug 2016 04:49

The T-216 was designed for potential customers including Australia, Canada, India.
It says so in their initial offering on their website onlee

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2016 07:42

we need to design and build our own boat. no ifs and buts.

for various subsystems like optronic masts, diesel engine etc we will need to import.

in these imports we can totally cut france from picture as a punishment for their schoolkid security system. the manuals will reach beijing long before karwar.

I would even consider buying american subsystems as they usually make sure nothing passes to cheen easily for their own sakes.

wig · Post by **wig** » 30 Aug 2016 09:49

Two fuel tanks fall off flying MiG-29, Navy orders probe
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 87448.html

A minor fire broke out on the runway of the Indian Naval Air Station, Dega, Visakhapatnam, today when a fuel “drop tank” of a MiG-29K fighter jet got jettisoned accidentally during takeoff.
Minutes later, the second fuel tank of the jet dropped in the parking lot of the headquarters of the local unit of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Navy has ordered an inquiry.
A spokesperson for the Eastern Naval Command said there was a minor fire on the runway but it was put off by the ground support crew.
Nobody was injured in the incident. There was no damage to the runway or the aircraft,” the official said.
The “drop tanks” are not integral to the body frame of the plane and can be attached and removed depending upon the range of the mission. These act as range extenders for the jets, which operate out at sea and can land and take off from aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya.
The accident occurred when the twin-engine MiG-29K was taking off on a routine training sortie from the east coast city. The fuel tank laden with aviation fuel fell off, causing a fire on the runway of the naval base. The pilot was asked to jettison the second fuel tank at sea to maintain balance as a full fuel tank under one wing of the jet could make it unstable to land. The pilot expended the fuel but the tank was not jettisoned due to a hydraulic malfunction. As the pilot approached the runway for landing, the second fuel tank fell off, landing inside the CISF facility.
Last month, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its report had questioned the safety of the plane. Forty-five aircraft and associated equipment were ordered at a cost of $2.2 billion (Rs 14,000 crore) in two tranches in 2004 and 2010.
The CAG said the aircraft was riddled with problems relating to airframe, its engine (RD MK-33) and also the fly-by-wire system. “The aircraft is being technically accepted despite having discrepancies/anomalies,” the report said.

wig · Post by **wig** » 30 Aug 2016 10:19

it seems that submarines such as INS Arihant are far cheaper then the imported Scorpenes

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 919022.cms

Home-made submarines cheaper than those built with foreign technology India is grappling with a leak of sensitive data on its Scorpene submarines from the French company but an internal assessment has found that it could be cheaper to construct an indigenous set of nuclear-powered attack submarines rather than relying on a foreign vendor for technology.
India is currently building six Scorpene submarines under a licence agreement from France, a deal which was inked for . Rs 18,000 crore in 2005. The Rs 3,000 crore a submarine tag would go up further if escalation and inflation is calculated for the ten year build period.
However, ET has been told that an internal assessment has brought out that the cost of constructing six new nuclear-powered attack submarines, derived from the design and expertise gained from the INS Arihant — India's first nuclear boat — would be close to Rs 35,000 crore.
The set of indigenous nuclear attack boats would not be as stealthy as a conventional, diesel electric submarine but would have much greater endurance and weapon carrying capability.
"According to our calculations, if we are to build six attack submarines based on the existing design of the Arihant,
the cost would not exceed Rs 35,000 crore," a source involved in the process told ET. Contrast this to an upcoming tender the Navy
will float for six more conventional su submarines which is expected to cost over Rs 60,000 crore, called Project 75 I. The huge difference in pricing, officials told ET, is due to the licence feescharged in the case of the Scorpene and the cost of technology development that would be factored into project 75I from the vendor.